FAN Zijuan 1,2 , LI Dijun 2 , YAN Lei 2 , XING Dan 3 , ZHOU Qi 4,5 , WANG Bin 2,6
  • 1. Department of Health Statistics, School of Public Health, Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, P. R. China;
  • 2. Department of Orthopaedics, The Second Hospital of Shanxi Medical University, Taiyuan 030001, P. R. China;
  • 3. Arthritis Clinic and Research Center, Peking University People’s Hospital, Beijing 100044, P. R. China;
  • 4. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 5. The Scientific, Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR) Working Group , Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 6. Department of Orthopaedic Surgery, the First Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310006, P. R. China;
ZHOU Qi, Email: zhouqi21@lzu.edu.cn; WANG Bin, Email: wangbin_pku@163.com
Orthopedics; Clinical practice guidelines; Expert consensus; Guideline evaluation
10.7507/1672-2531.202402052
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective To understand the current national status of the rating of published orthopedic guidelines and consensus in China, to help users select the appropriate use of these clinical guidelines, to guide clinical practice, and to promote the targeted improvement of the quality of Chinese orthopedic guidelines and consensus. Methods Chinese biomedical databases, including CNKI, WanFang Data, and SinoMed were searched electronically from January 2016 to October 2023, and relevant Chinese orthopedic clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents were collected. Two evaluators independently screened the retrieved literature and extracted data. The scientificity, transparency, and applicability rankings (STAR) tool was used to comprehensively rate Chinese orthopedic guidelines and consensus documents published in medical journals since 2016. Any dispute between the two evaluators was resolved by consulting a third evaluator. Kappa values were used to evaluate the consistency of the results between the two evaluators. Results A total of 191 orthopedic-related guidelines and consensus documents were obtained, including 74 guidelines and 117 consensus documents. The average score of the guidelines included in the evaluation was 34.4 points, while the average score of consensus documents included in the evaluation was 21.7 points. Guidelines scored higher than consensus documents in areas such as registration, planning, workgroups, clinical issues, evidence, consensus methods, recommendations, accessibility, and other fields. The Kappa value test result was 0.684. Conclusion There has been a progressive increase in methodological scores of Chinese orthopedic clinical practice guidelines and consensus documents published in recent years, but the overall quality is not high. Future guidelines development needs to improve methodology further, especially in terms of transparent funding, formation of recommendations, guidelines release, and dissemination.

Citation： FAN Zijuan, LI Dijun, YAN Lei, XING Dan, ZHOU Qi, WANG Bin. Quality assessment of Chinese clinical practice guidelines and consensus in orthopedics. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2024, 24(7): 832-837. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202402052 Copy

  • Previous Article

    Structured grading and evaluation of clinical questions in clinical practice guidelines

  • Next Article

    Interpretation of SHam Acupuncture REporting (SHARE) guidelines and a checklist in clinical trials