Chinese guideline for diagnosis and treatment of osteoarthritis (2021 edition) was published in the Chinese Journal of Orthopaedics, providing abundant recommendations on osteoarthritis (OA) issues. In this paper, the methodological and reporting qualities of the guideline were explained and assessed by using quality appraisal tools, such as appraisal of guidelines research and evaluation-China (AGREE-China), Institute of Medicine Committee (IOM), and reporting items for practice guidelines in healthcare (RIGHT). It also aimed to provide personalized treatments for specific patients, support readers in understanding the principle of OA treatment, and standardize OA treatment strategies. In addition, this study would contribute to the clinical promotion of the current guidelines and provide the necessary references for clinical practice guidelines in treating OA in the future.
ObjectiveTo 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. MethodsChinese 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. ResultsA 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. ConclusionThere 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.