English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Health practice guidelines (HPGs) are important tools for the translation of evidence into practice. Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist provides guidance on reporting health practice guidelines (HPGs). We assessed the reporting completeness and quality of a set of national (Croatian) and relevant transnational (European) HPGs.    Methods  The national sample included all HPGs published in the official journal of the Croatian Medical Association in 2014–2016. We searched PubMed to identify relevant European guidelines ( n  = 24). Two independent reviewers assessed the adherence with the items on the RIGHT checklist. Kappa score was used to measure the level of agreement. Frequentist and Bayes statistics Bayes factor (BF 10 ) was used to evaluate the differences between the national and transnational HPGs.    Results  Overall, Croatian and European HPGs adhered to less than 50% of RIGHT checklist items. Croatian HPGs reported a median of 14.0 (95% CI 13.0–15.0) RIGHT reporting items, and European counterparts reported a median of 16.0 (95% CI 14.0–17.2) out of the total of 35 checklist items (Mann Whitney  U  test,  P  = 0.048; BF 10  = 1.543). European HPGs were better than Croatian HPGs in reporting stakeholder involvement and values and preferences (BF 10  = 80.63), as well as describing the implications of costs and resources (BF 10  = 55.15). Croatian HPGs better reported HPGs specified aims (BF 10  = 16.90), primary intended users (BF 10  = 8.70), and sources of funding (BF 10  = 122.90). Most insufficiently reported items for both HPG sets were defining the guideline questions and clear outcomes, quality assurance, management of funding and conflicts of interest, and guideline limitations.    Conclusions  Important methodological details are missing from most published HPGs at national and transnational levels. To ensure better quality and adequate use of HPGs, reporting guidelines should be endorsed and used by developers and users alike.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (10.1186/s13012-018-0828-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Reporting quality of European and Croatian health practice guidelines according to the RIGHT reporting checklist