Strengthening the management and evaluation of clinical pathways is one of the most important strategies of "Healthy China 2030" Strategic Plan. Evidence-based assessment and clinical guidelines can provide the best relevant evidence to develop clinical pathways. We planned to analyze the current situation of clinical pathways in China and explore how to apply evidence-based assessment on clinical pathway management. We searched PubMed, EMbase, ISI, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and the The Cochrane Library using "critical pathways" and "clinical guidelines" as key words or subject terms. And we conducted a comparison of their published volume, definitions, differences and connections. The management system of clinical pathway in China is fundamentally flawed, it is still a challenge to implement the clinical pathways effectively without scientific methodologies and standardized evidence-based evaluation system. In order to improve the management quality of clinical pathway in China, we should develop clinical pathways based on national situation and innovate the evaluation system to standardize the clinical pathway management according to WHO recommendations of clinical guideline and appraisal.
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus on central venous catheters. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases and Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Medive.cn websites were searched to collect clinical guidelines and consensus related to central venous catheters. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and used evaluation tools AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 34 central venous catheter guidelines and consensus were included. The average score for each field of AGREE II was 53.73% for scope and purpose, 39.26% for participants, 39.57% for rigor, 46.76% for clarity, 30.23% for application and 49.18% for editorial independence. Items 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 (100.00%) had the highest reporting rate in the RIGHT evaluation items, followed by items 19a (97.05%), 2/19b (94.11%), 20 (91.17%), 7b/11a (88.23%), and 7a (85.29%). The reporting rate of the remaining items was below 60%. Subgroup analysis results showed that the average score and RIGHT score of the guidance class in the four fields of AGREE Ⅱ (rigor, clarity, application and editorial independence) were higher than those of the consensus class. Guidelines and consensus formulated based on evidence-based medicine methods were higher than those formulated based on expert opinions or reviews in the three fields of AGREE II (rigor, application and editorial independence). The average scores of foreign guidelines and consensus in 6 fields and RIGHT scores of AGREE Ⅱ were higher than those of domestic guidelines and consensus. Conclusion The AGREE Ⅱ of 6 fields average score and RIGHT score in foreign guidelines are higher than those in domestic guidelines.