Premium
The quality of clinical practice guidelines in C hina: a systematic assessment
Author(s) -
Hu Jing,
Chen Ru,
Wu Shanshan,
Tang Jinling,
Leng Gillian,
Kunnamo Ilkka,
Yang Zhirong,
Wang Weiwei,
Hua Xinyang,
Zhang Yuelun,
Xie Yanming,
Zhan Siyan
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
journal of evaluation in clinical practice
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.737
H-Index - 73
eISSN - 1365-2753
pISSN - 1356-1294
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2753.2012.01893.x
Subject(s) - guideline , medicine , quality of evidence , quality (philosophy) , systematic review , valuation (finance) , quality management , evidence based medicine , family medicine , medline , service (business) , alternative medicine , business , meta analysis , accounting , marketing , pathology , political science , philosophy , epistemology , law
Background Clinical guidelines are an important tool for improving service quality, the benefits of guidelines depend on their quality. In C hina, there has been a great increase in production of guidelines. However, little is known about their quality. Method We identified C hinese guidelines published between 2006 and 2010 by searching three C hinese full‐text databases, major C hinese guidelines websites and G oogle. Three appraisers independently evaluated each guideline by using the A ppraisal of G uidelines for R esearch and E valuation ( AGREE ) instrument. Subgroup analyses were performed according to source, title, version, aspect of care and developer of guidelines. Results A total of 327 guidelines were eligible and 57 were excluded for their lacking of any account of the guideline development methodology. Of the 270 guidelines, 77 (28.5%) can be recommended, 6 (2.2%) were evidence‐based guidelines. Sixteen (5.9%) guidelines described the methods used to search for evidence, 61 (22.6%) appraised the quality of evidence and 53 (19.6%) graded the strength of recommendations. Two guidelines declared the involvement of methodological experts and none reported considering patients’ values. 29 (10.7%) guidelines received drug company sponsorship but only two declared the views of the funding bodies did not influence the recommendations, 259 (95.9%) didn't declare the interest conflicts of guideline developers. Guidelines downloaded from Internet and with updated versions yielded higher quality than the rest. Conclusions Although numerous guidelines were produced in C hina, the quality was generally low. Focusing on improving the quality of C hinese guidelines, rather than continuing to produce them in great quantity, is urgently needed.