Original Article
Evaluation of Chinese clinical practice guideline/consensus for digestive diseases
Ningping Zhang, Jiyao Wang, Shiyao Chen, Chouwen Zhu, Qiang Wang
Published 2019-09-15
Cite as Chin J Dig, 2019, 39(9): 613-618. DOI: 10.3760/cma.j.issn.0254-1432.2019.09.004
Abstract
ObjectiveTo evaluate Chinese clinical practice guideline/consensus for digestive diseases published in the past five years in order to recommend the high-quality guidelines and help with the promotion and implementation of them.
MethodsFrom January 2013 to June 2018, the officially published Chinese practice guideline/consensus for digestive diseases were selected. The inclusion and exclusion criteria of the guideline/consensus was evaluated by "Evaluation Criteria for Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines 2017(AGREE-China 2017)" . The guideline/consensus were independently scored by three evaluators and then calculated the average value. Descriptive analysis methods were used to analyze the Chinese clinical practice guideline/consensus for digestive diseases. Those with the total score more than 40.0 points were included in the recommended list.
ResultsA total of 119 officially published clinical practice guideline/consensus of digestive diseases were retrieved, and 74 clinical practice guideline/consensus for digestive diseases were included in the evaluation. Among them, 18 (24.3%, 18/74) scored over 60.0 points, 31 (41.9%, 31/74) scored between 40.0 and 59.9 points. Finally 48 guideline or consesus were selected for the recommended list 19 cases of esophagus and gastrointestinal diseases, 18 cases of liver diseases, five cases of biliary and pancreafic diseases, and six cases of digestive endoscopy. The three guideline/consensus with the high scores (> 80.0 points) were The Fifth Chinese National Consensus Report on the Maragement of Helicobacter pylori Infection, Consensus on the Diagnosis and Treatmeat of Cholestatic Liver Disease (2015) and Guidelines for the Prevention and Treatment of Chroaic Hepatitis B (2015 Update). The higher the score of the guideline/consensus, the more scientific and rigorous the method, and the clearer the evaluation of evidence grade and the description of the formation of recommendations. Compared with international standards of guideline/consensus development, there are still some problems in Chinese guidelines or consensus such as no explanation of retrieval strategy, no basis of evidence classification and no description of the formation process from evidence to recommendation.
ConclusionsThe quality of Chinese clinical practice guideline/consensus for digestive diseases has been improved year by year. However the scientific aspects need to be further improved. AGREE-China which demonstrates good validity, realiability and practicability is easy and clear to use.
Key words:
Guideline evaluation; Evaluation criteria for Chinese clinical practice guidelines; AGREE-China; Clinical practice guideline of digestive disease
Contributor Information
Ningping Zhang
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zhongshan Hospital, Evidence-based Medicine Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
Jiyao Wang
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zhongshan Hospital, Evidence-based Medicine Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
Shiyao Chen
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zhongshan Hospital, Evidence-based Medicine Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
Chouwen Zhu
Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Zhongshan Hospital, Evidence-based Medicine Center, Fudan University, Shanghai 200032, China
Qiang Wang
National Center for Medical Service Administration, National Health Commission, Beijing 100044, China
