Objective To investigate an evaluation method of medical literature applicability to clinical work， and provide a convenient way for physicians to search for the best evidence. Methods Delphi method was used to choose appropriate evaluating indexes， analytic hierarchy process was performed to determine the weighing of each index， and the formula to calculate medical literature applicability was formed. The practicability of this formula was evaluated by consistency checking between the formula’s results and experts’ opinions on literature applicability. Results Five evaluating indexes were determined， including literature’s publishing year （X1）， whether the target questions were covered （X2）, sample size （X3）， trial category （X4）， and journal level （X5）. The formula to calculate medical literature applicability was Y=3.93 X1＋11.78 X2＋14.83 X3＋44.53 X4＋24.93 X5. The result of consistency checking showed that the formula’s results were highly consistent with experts’ opinions （Kappa=0.75， P＜0.001）. Conclusion The applicability formula is a valuable tool to evaluate medical literature applicability.
ObjectivesTo investigate the current status of the clinical applicability evaluation tools, and to provide some foundation for establishment of the clinical applicability evaluation index system.Methods7 databases, 6 guideline databases and 16 academic institutions and the administrative department of health website were systematically searched from inception to April 2019. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then included the literature related to the applicability of clinical guidelines. The CPG clinical applicability evaluation index was initially prepared through the subject comprehensive method.ResultsA total of 19 articles were finally included. Among them, there were 4 evaluation tools for the clinical applicability of the guidelines, and 15 evaluation tools for the guideline clinical applicability evaluation items. Through combing and comparison, we found that these tools had differences in evaluators, evaluation fields and items.ConclusionsThe global guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools have different kinds of problems, such as that the tools are not targeted, the indicators are not well-formed, and the methodological knowledge requirement of the evaluators is high. There is still a lack of guidelines for clinical applicability assessment tools from target users’ view.
ObjectivesTo establish a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators.MethodsThe research group formed a multidisciplinary team to establish an evidence- based tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines through systematic evaluation and two rounds of Delphi expert consultation and external audit.ResultsThe established tool consisted: evaluator basic information (12 items); clinical applicability evaluation (12 items, including availability, readability, acceptability, feasibility and overall evaluation); and scoring scheme.ConclusionsThis study has established a tool for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines with the users of the guidelines as evaluators and provides criteria and methods for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines.
Clinical practice guidelines are decision-making tools for bridging the gap between current best evidence and clinical practice. Studies have shown poor clinical applicability of existing guidelines, which may not be solved by improving the quality of guidelines alone. National medical management service guidance center is developing clinical practice guidelines of clinical evaluation system of construction projects, based on evidence-based method formulated by the target users of clinical guidelines evaluators’ applicability evaluation system of clinical practice guidelines. It aims to identify guidelines with high clinical applicability and provide the evaluation results of clinical applicability to developers and revisers of clinical guidelines, and then optimize the development and update, eventually improving the clinical applicability of guides and promote Chinese clinical guidelines in clinical application.
Objective To update and form an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 1.0). Methods We updated the systematic review of global guideline clinical applicability evaluation instruments to form the initial item list and carried out Delphi expert consultation to establish the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Results The general structure of version 2.0 was consistent with that of version 1.0, which included 12 evaluation items belonging to five domains covering accessibility, readability, acceptability, feasibility, and an overall evaluation. Moreover, some new items were added in version 2.0, such as "The guideline does not provide supporting tools or resources and the operation is poor", "After the guideline implementation, the expected effects of diagnosis and treatment do not be achieved", " Medical staff in your workplace believe that the guideline is not necessary because they have sufficient medical experience, etc.", "Lack of authority of the organizations and personnel that developed the guideline" and "Medical staff in your workplace are reluctant to change the original medical practice". Conclusion This study updated and formed an instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0), which is able to better assess the applicability of new clinical guidelines and greatly promote more appropriate guidelines into practice.
Objective To evaluate the clinical applicability of clinical practice guidelines in China in the past 5 years, and to provide suggestions for better development and implementation of guidelines. Methods A cross-sectional study was conducted. A total of 61 guidelines issued by the Chinese Medical Association and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association from 2015 to 2020 were selected randomly based on CNKI database. Each guideline was evaluated by medical staff from three regions using the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Quantitative data were described by mean, standard deviation, median and interquartile range, while qualitative data were described by frequency and composition ratio. Results A total of 6 904 valid questionnaires were collected from 119 medical institutions in 26 provinces of China. The results showed that the standardized scores ranged from 54.4% to 72.7% (median 64.3%) for accessibility, from 66.1% to 83.3% (median 74.9%) for readability, from 53.7% to 94.7% (median 86.0%) for acceptability, and ranged from 61.4% to 81.0% (median 72.5%) for feasibility. Approximately 4.3% of the medical staff considered that there were obstacles to implement the guidelines, including environmental factors (32.1%), medical staff factors (26.5%), guidelines factors (22.5%), and patients or family factors (18.9%). Conclusion The overall clinical applicability of the guidelines selected in this study is satisfactory. However, it is necessary to improve the accessibility of clinical guidelines. In addition, to improve the clinical applicability, it is suggested that medical staff should be trained and provided with supporting resources.
The instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0) is designed to evaluate the clinical applicability of guidelines quantitatively. It is helpful to select guidelines with high clinical applicability and provide suggestions for revision. The evaluators are consistent with the target users of guidelines. The instrument consists of basic information, evaluation items and scoring scheme. The evaluation items are related to accessibility, readability, acceptability, feasibility and overall evaluation. Therefore, this article provides a detailed interpretation of the instrument and references for future users.
ObjectiveTo explore impact factors related to the clinical applicability of guidelines, and provide suggestions for better development and implementation of guidelines. MethodsThe CNKI database was electronically searched to collect clinical guidelines issued by the Chinese Medical Association and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association from 2015 to 2020. Sixty-one guidelines were randomly selected from included guidelines and each guideline was evaluated by medical staff from three regions using the instrument for evaluating clinical applicability of guidelines (version 2.0). Statistical data were described, and t-test or rank sum test or chi-square test were used for comparison between groups. The impact factors were screened by stepwise logistic regression analysis. ResultsA total of 6 904 valid questionnaires were collected from 119 medical institutions in 26 provinces of China. The more familiar with the guidelines and the more consistent with the wishes of patients or their families, the overall standardized score of the clinical applicability of guidelines would be higher. In addition, the more familiar with the guidelines, the standardized scores in each field would be higher. The higher emphasis on guidelines compliance, the higher the feasibility standardized score. ConclusionIn order to improve the clinical applicability of guidelines, developers should pay attention to whether the recommendations are consistent with the wishes of patients or their families. Then, medical institutions should pay attention to the compliance of guidelines. Finally, medical personnel should be familiar with the recommendations.
ObjectiveTo systematically review the clinical applicability of the global guidelines evaluation index system, and to provide some foundation for the evidence-based establishment of the clinical applicability evaluation index system in China. MethodsThe PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, WanFang and VIP databases were electronically searched to collect literature on the clinical applicability evaluation index system of guidelines from inception to November 2022. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data and then organized the data to form the evaluation items pool through qualitative systematic review and thematic synthesis. ResultsA total of 82 articles were finally included, and 141 clinical applicability evaluation indicators were obtained, including 5 third-level topics, 14 analytical topics and 141 descriptive topics. The third-level topics were availability, readability, feasibility, acceptability and overall evaluation. Influencing factors in the feasibility field were summarized as medical staff factors, patient/patient family factors, environmental factors and guideline factors. ConclusionThis study systematically sort out the applicability evaluation items of the guidelines, which provide an evidence-based reference for the construction of relevant evaluation index systems in China.