ObjectiveTo biliometric analysis of the status quo of tracking rural health service quality, evaluation and supervision mechanism, in order to improve the quality of rural health service, optimize the allocation of resources and increase the quality and level of health service of rural medical staff. MethodsWe searched PubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 3, 2016), The Campbell Library, Web of Science, CBM, CNKI, and WanFang Data, as well as relevant websites up to March 2016. EndNote X7 software and Excel 2007 software were used for screening literature and analysis data. ResultsA total of 39 studies were included in the biliometric analysis. Eighteen studies were cross-sectional studies (46.2%), 18 were reviews (46.2%), 2 were cluster randomized trials (5.1%) and 1 was randomized controlled trial (2.6%). Thirteen studies were published in journals indexed by Science Citation Index, 3 were published in journals indexed by Chinese Science Citation Database, 18 were published on other peer-review journals, and 5 were thesis's. The involved theoretical models were as follows: 10 mechanisms (30.8%), 4 frameworks (18%), 11 systems (30.8%) and 12 methods (30.8%). The serviceable range included village clinics (n=3, 7.7%), town-level hospitals (n=3, 7.7%), and community (n=2, 5.1%). The research topics included public health (n=19, 48.7%), clinical care (n=16, 41%), medical insurance (n=4, 10.3%). ConclusionThe studies for rural health service quality tracking, research evaluation and supervision mechanism are still lack of systematic, pertinence and practicability, and the level of evidence is still low. We suggest pay attention and strengthen the rural health service quality tracking, research evaluation and supervision mechanism, and to provide effective evidence for effective evaluation and supervision to promote rural health service quality, and to promote the reasonable optimization the allocation of health resources in rural areas, and to greatly improve the quality and level of rural health service.
ObjectiveTo overview the systematic reviews/meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) of efficacy and safety of dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors (DPP-4) in treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).MethodsDatabase including The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMbase, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were searched from inception to December 2016 to collect SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and evaluated the reporting and methodological qualities using the PRISMA checklist and the AMSTAR tool.ResultsTwenty-seven SRs/MAs of DPP-4 for the treatment of T2DM were included in this overview. The average score of AMSTAR was 7.04. The worst score were the item 1 (26 studies didn't provide an ‘a priori’ design), item 4 (10 studies didn't provide whether the status of publication used as an inclusion criterion?), item 10 and item 11 (15 studies didn't assess the likelihood of publication bias and the potential conflicts of interest). The PRISMA score ranged from 17.0 to 24.5. The main problems of reporting were protocol and registration, search, additional analyses and funding.ConclusionThe evidence shows that the reporting and methodological quality of the SRs/MAs of DPP-4 inhibitors for type 2 diabetes are not high.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2015.MethodsCBM, CNKI, VIP and WanFang Data databases were searched to collect clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals from January, 2015 to December, 2015. Two reviewers independently screened literature, extracted data, and the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines were evaluated by the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT). Excel software was used for data analysis.ResultsA total of 74 clinical practice guidelines were included. It was found that among the seven domains of RIGHT, the reporting quality of basic information and background domains were acceptable. There were fewer problems in the domain of evidence and recommendation. There were many deficiencies in three domains, such as review and quality assurance, funding and the declaration/management of interests and other information.ConclusionsThe reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese journals in 2015 is low, and the full reporting rate of clinical practice guidelines need to be improved. It is suggested that guideline developers construct strict guidelines for the development and report the guidelines with international standard, thus improving the quality of the clinical practice guidelines.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the necessary factors of questionnaires design on patients' values and preferences in order to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires when developing clinical practice guidelines.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient values and preferences. The authors included the articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options. We assessed the questionnaires' construction with psychometric methodology and summarized the necessary factors on patients' preferences and values into the domains and items.ResultsTwenty articles were eventually included. Five out of 20 studies (25%, 5/20) described the process of item generation while merely one questionnaire (5%, 1/20) mentioned pilot testing. Regarding validity, there were 6 questionnaires (30%, 6/20) that assessed validity. For acceptability, the time taken to complete the questionnaires range from 10 to 30 minutes and only 6 studies reported response rates. The results showed that the factors affecting the design of questionnaires on patients' values and preference were related to the effectiveness, safety, prognostic factors and others. The main factors were the effects, side effects and risk of complications, risk of relapse and the cost of treatments.ConclusionsOnly a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patients' preference and values. There is still no valid or reliable questionnaires for patients' preference and values when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patients' preference and values. It is suggested that the factors this study provides can be used in formulating questionnaires on patients' preference and values.