全球乳腺癌筛查指南质量评价

目的对已发表的乳腺癌筛查指南进行质量评价,为我国乳腺癌筛查指南的制订提供借鉴和参考。方法检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、中国生物医学文献服务系统、维普网和万方数据知识服务平台中乳腺癌筛查指南,检索时间为建库至2020年8月。由2名研究人员独立筛选文献和提取资料,采用开发指南研究和评估工具Ⅱ(AGREEⅡ)和国际实践指南报告标准(RIGHT)对纳入的指南进行质量评价。结果共纳入15部乳腺癌筛查指南,其中7部由美国发布,发表年份主要集中在2015-2019年,11部指南有更新版本。AGREEⅡ评价结果显示,严谨性(47.0%±22.1%)和应用性(44.0%±15.1%)得分较低,RIGHT评价结果显示,评审和质量保证(46.7%±39.9%)及资金资助和利益冲突(41.7%±24.4%)报告较差。根据AGREEⅡ整体得分推荐使用的指南共有6部,修改后推荐使用的指南有9部;RIGHT报告水平良好的指南有4部,报告水平一般的指南共11部。综合质量最好的是美国国立综合癌症网络2018年发布的指南(AGREEⅡ:83.3%,RIGHT:80.0%)和美国癌症学会2015年发布的指南(AGREEⅡ:83.3%,RIGHT:85.7%)。结论乳腺癌筛查指南的质量以中等质量为主,应加强对指南的制订过程和质量控制等内容的关注。     

全球肝癌筛查指南及共识质量评价

目的系统评价全球肝癌筛查指南/共识的方法学质量,为我国肝癌筛查循证指南的制定提供参考依据。方法系统检索PubMed、Cochrane Library、中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献服务系统等中、英文数据库中肝癌筛查指南/共识,同时搜集相关指南制订机构作为补充。检索时间截至2020年6月30日。由2名研究人员独立进行文献筛选和信息提取。采用开发指南研究和评估工具Ⅱ(AGREEⅡ)和国际实践指南报告标准(RIGHT)对纳入的指南进行质量评价。结果共纳入19部肝癌筛查指南/共识,发布时间为2003-2019年。AGREEⅡ评价结果显示,纳入指南的质量较高,其中9部指南推荐为A级,5部指南推荐为B级。各指南在范围和目的、参与人员、清晰性领域得分较高。RIGHT评价结果中以基本信息报告率最高(56.1%),背景(37.5%)和推荐意见(39.8%)报告质量尚可。证据(35.8%)、评审和质量保证(18.4%)、资金资助和利益冲突(22.4%)以及其他方面(21.0%)4个领域的质量待改善。结论肝癌筛查指南质量尚可,但在证据、评审和质量保证、资金资助和利益冲突方面仍有待加强。我国尚缺乏肝癌筛查的独立的循证医学指南。     

全球结直肠癌筛查指南及共识质量评价

目的系统评价结直肠癌筛查指南/共识的方法学和报告质量,为我国结直肠癌筛查工作的开展以及指南/共识的制定提供参考依据。方法系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、维普网、中国生物医学文献服务系统、PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane Library和Guidelines International Network,并同时检索美国预防服务工作组、美国癌症学会等刊登的筛查指南/共识作为补充,选择2020年9月1日前发表的所有中、英文结直肠筛查指南/共识。采用开发指南/共识研究和评估工具Ⅱ(AGREEⅡ)和国际实践指南报告标准(RIGHT)对结直肠癌筛查指南/共识进行质量评估。结果经过质控后共纳入19部指南/共识,主要由美国、中国、澳大利亚、加拿大、英国、韩国以及国际组织发布,其中美国发布的指南/共识最多(7部);AGREEⅡ评价结果显示,19部指南/共识整体质量较高,各指南/共识得分均值在范围和目的、清晰性领域得分较高,分别为87.5%和89.6%,但在参与人员(47.0%)、严谨性(42.3%)、应用性(47.5%)和独立性(50.2%)领域表现不佳。其中,整体得分≥50.0%的有12部,推荐等级达到A级的有13部、B级的有2部、C级的有4部;RIGHT评价结果显示,各领域平均报告率分别为基本信息(76.3%)、背景(77.0%)、证据(55.8%)、推荐意见(59.4%)、评审和质量保证(26.3%)、资金资助和利益冲突(43.4%)、其他方面(49.1%)。亚组分析显示,中国6部指南/共识质量与发达国家还有一定的差距。结论结直肠癌筛查指南/共识发布数量呈上升趋势且整体质量较高,但在报告规范性方面有待提高。     

中国营养指南和专家共识质量评价——基于AGREE Ⅱ和RIGHT工具

目的基于AGREE Ⅱ和RIGHT工具,评价中国现存营养指南和专家共识的质量,以期为临床实践及后续指南的制订提供参考。方法检索中英文数据库和医脉通,搜集营养相关指南和专家共识。采用AGREE Ⅱ和RIGHT工具评价指南质量,使用组内相关系数进行一致性检验。结果最终纳入64部指南和专家共识,均为中国发布。AGREE Ⅱ 6个领域标准化得分依次为(64.19%±12.58%)、(31.64%±13.07%)、(23.00%±13.33%)、(54.95%±15.15%)、(23.63%±14.96%)、(32.36%±16.46%)。RIGHT 7个领域报告率依次为(55.47%±49.76%)、(63.28%±48.25%)、(43.13%±49.60%)、(39.95%±49.04%)、(13.28%±38.03%)、(15.63%±36.38%)、(26.56%±44.28%)。结论 64部指南和专家共识的方法质量和报告质量均有待提高。建议未来制订营养指南和专家共识时严格遵循国际标准,提高方法学和报告质量,为临床医护人员和其他人群的营养筛查、评估、治疗等提供高质量参考依据。     

全球肺癌筛查指南及共识质量评价

目的 了解国内外肺癌筛查指南/共识的研究进展和质量，为我国制定高质量的肺癌筛查指南/共识提供参考依据。方法 检索PubMed、Medline、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网、中国生物医学文献服务系统、维普网和万方数据知识服务平台共9个数据库和相关网站关于肺癌筛查指南/共识的文献，采用开发指南研究和评估工具Ⅱ（AGREE Ⅱ）和国际实践指南报告标准（RIGHT）评价工具对新发布或更新的指南/共识进行质量评价。结果 共纳入2015-2020年的9部指南/共识，发布的国家包括美国、中国、加拿大、沙特阿拉伯和南非；AGREE Ⅱ评价结果显示，范围和目的及清晰性得分较高，严谨性和应用性得分较低；5部指南被判定为A级，均为国外发布的指南，其余4部为B级，包括中国发布的3部指南/共识以及1部南非发布的指南；RIGHT评价结果显示，基本信息和背景报告率较高，评审和质量保证、资金资助和利益冲突报告率较低，其中，报告水平良好的指南5部，报告水平中等的指南/共识4部。综合质量较高的是美国胸科医师学会2018年发布的指南和加拿大预防保健工作组2016年发布的指南。结论 肺癌筛查指南/共识的发布国家和机构数量逐渐增加，我国的肺癌筛查指南/共识的质量偏低，需结合循证方法制订出适合我国国情的高质量的肺癌筛查指南/共识，以指导实践。     

胃癌筛查领域指南方法学质量和报告质量的系统评价

目的系统评价国内外现有胃癌筛查指南的方法学质量,为今后同类指南的制定和更新提供标准和参考依据。方法以“指南”“共识”“规范”“标准”“胃癌”“胃部肿瘤”“筛查”“筛检”“诊断”“Gastric Cancer”“Gastric Tumor”“guideline”“recommendation”“Early Detection of Cancer”“Screening”为检索关键词,系统检索中国知网、万方知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国临床指南文库、PubMed、The Cochrane Library、EMBASE、Web of Knowledge等数据库截止到2018年9月的中、英文文献,并同时检索美国预防服务工作组、美国癌症学会、国际癌症研究机构、澳大利亚癌症委员会、国际指南协作网的机构官网刊登的指南作为补充。纳入标准为胃癌筛查的独立指南文件,且符合美国医学研究所对指南的定义;排除标准包括指南的摘要、解读及评价类文献、重复发表、已更新的原始版指南以及胃癌临床治疗或实践指南。采用欧洲指南研究与评估工具(AGREEⅡ)和实践指南报告标准(RIGHT)对胃癌筛查指南的质量和报告规范程度进行比较和评价。结果共纳入5篇指南。AGREEⅡ质量评价结果显示,5篇指南整体质量参差不齐,其中推荐等级为“A”的有1篇,等级为“B”的有1篇,等级为“C”的有3篇;各指南在范围和目的、清晰性领域得分较高,在严谨性、独立性领域得分差异较大,在参与人员、应用性领域得分普遍较低。RIGHT评价结果显示,5篇指南报告质量有待提高,报告质量较差的6个条目分别为背景、证据、推荐意见、评审和质量保证、资金资助与利益冲突声明和管理以及其他方面。结论纳入的胃癌筛查指南的质量整体一般,规范性有待加强。     

全球上消化道癌筛查指南的质量评价

目的 系统评价国内外现有上消化道癌（包括食管癌和胃癌）筛查指南的方法学质量，为今后同类指南的制定和更新提供标准和参考依据。方法 本研究系统检索中国知网、万方数据知识服务平台、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国临床指南文库、PubMed、The Cochrane Library和Embase等数据平台建库至2020年8月发表的文献，并同时检索国际癌症研究机构、国际指南协作网的机构官网刊登的指南作为补充。纳入标准为食管癌或胃癌筛查的独立指南，且符合美国医学研究所对指南的定义；排除标准包括指南的摘要、解读及评价类文献、重复发表、已更新的原始版指南以及食管癌或胃癌临床治疗或实践指南。采用指南研究和评估工具（AGREE Ⅱ）和国际实践指南报告标准（RIGHT）对上消化道癌筛查指南的质量和报告规范程度进行比较和评价。结果 共纳入6篇食管癌筛查指南，5篇胃癌筛查指南。AGREE Ⅱ质量评价结果显示，11篇指南整体质量参差不齐，其中推荐等级为"A"的有2篇、等级为"B"的有1篇、等级为"C"的有5篇、等级为"D"的有3篇；各指南在范围和目的、清晰性领域得分较高，食管癌筛查指南在严谨性、独立性领域得分差异较大，胃癌筛查指南在参与人员、应用性领域得分普遍较低。RIGHT评价结果显示，11篇指南报告质量有待提高，报告质量较差的6个条目分别为背景、证据、推荐意见、评审和质量保证、资金资助和利益冲突以及其他方面。结论 纳入的上消化道癌筛查指南的质量整体一般，规范性有待加强。     

2019年我国外科学临床实践指南方法学质量评价

目的评价2019年我国外科学临床实践指南方法学质量。方法以“指南”为主题检索词,在万方、中国知网、维普和中国生物医学文献等数据库中检索中文核心期刊公开发表的外科学临床实践指南,检索时限为2019年1月1日-12月31日。采用临床指南研究与评估系统（AGREEⅡ）对指南的方法学质量进行评价。结果共纳入29部外科学指南,其中11部有基金资助说明,指南参考文献数平均为77篇。纳入指南在范围和目的、参与人员、严谨性、清晰性、应用性和编辑的独立性领域得分分别为50.00%（33.33%,63.89%）、25.00%（13.89%,41.67%）、20.83%（8.33%,34.38%）、55.56%（38.89%,69.44%）、0%（0%,4.17%）和0%（0%,50.00%）。结论2019年我国外科学临床实践指南总体质量不高。未来指南制定需要在方法学方面进一步提升,尤其是严谨性、应用性和编辑的独立性方面。     

绝经后骨质疏松症临床实践指南和专家共识的质量评价

目的 采用AGREE Ⅱ工具评价绝经后骨质疏松症的临床实践指南和专家共识,为中国绝经后骨质疏松症指南的制订提供参考依据。方法 通过检索PubMed、EMbase、中国生物医学文献服务系统、中国知网、维普和万方数据库,同时补充检索医脉通数据库、WHO、美国国立临床诊疗指南数据库、英国国家卫生与服务优化研究院等数据库,收集绝经后骨质疏松症的指南和共识,初始检索时限为建库至2022年6月,补充检索时限为建库至2022年9月。由2名研究者独立筛选指南和专家共识并提取资料后,采用AGREE Ⅱ工具对纳入的指南和共识进行质量评价。结果 共纳入29篇指南和共识,AGREE Ⅱ 6个结构域制订平均得分率为91%、52%、38%、79%、37%、56%,组内相关系数检验结果为0.80(P<0.05)。编辑的独立性方面,国外指南或共识得分高于国内指南或共识(Z=-2.763,P<0.05)。指南较共识在应用性领域得分高(Z=-2.387,P<0.05)。2017年之后发表的指南和共识在参与人员和表达清晰性领域比2017年之前的得分高(Z=-2.232,P<0.05;Z=-3.189...     

预防婴幼儿意外窒息指南/共识的质量评价及内容分析

目的 评价有关预防婴幼儿意外窒息的循证指南及共识文献，为预防意外窒息提供依据。方法 系统检索指南发布的主要网站、专业学会网站和电子文献数据库中有关婴幼儿意外窒息的指南文献，并追溯查阅相关参考文献。检索时间为建库至2021年7月31日。应用指南研究和评估工具Ⅱ（AGREE Ⅱ）及JBI循证卫生保健中心专家共识评价标准分别对循证指南和专家共识文献进行质量评价，总结分析各指南中有关预防婴幼儿意外窒息的相关建议。结果 筛选后共纳入6篇文献，最终纳入2篇循证指南、4篇专家共识。2篇循证指南经AGREE Ⅱ评价后，其范围与目的、参与人员、严谨性、清晰性、应用性与独立性6个领域标准化百分比得分分别为88.89%、86.12%、76.52%、86.12%、77.08%、91.67%，均为A级；组内相关系数（ICC）均＞0.75，一致性较高。4篇专家共识各条目的评价结果一致，均为“纳入”。最终归纳形成32条预防婴幼儿意外窒息的推荐建议，包括睡眠环境、用物管理、饮食管理、培训教育、组织政策五个方面。结论 纳入的6篇文献总体质量较好，评价分析后所得到的预防婴幼儿意外窒息的推荐建议可为卫生保健人员开展健康教育提供依据。     

Methodology of Clinical Nutrition Guidelines for Adult Cancer Patients

Background: Malnutrition delays recovery from cancer treatment and can lead to additional serious complications. Clinical guidelines for the management of malnutrition in cancer patients are essential tools for optimizing nutritional care; therefore, their methodological quality is of great importance. This review assesses the methodological quality of international clinical guidelines for the management of malnutrition in adult cancer patients. Methods: Guidelines were identified through searches in multiple electronic databases; afterward, they were systematically reviewed with the AGREE instrument, which is one method of evaluating the methodological quality of guidelines. Results: The methodological quality of the guidelines reviewed varied greatly. The highest scores were observed in the domains “scope and purpose” and “clarity and presentation,” while the lowest scores were awarded in the domains “editorial independence,” “stakeholder involvement,” and “applicability.” Furthermore, there was consensus on the indication for parenteral nutrition and nutrition screening. However, there was a lack of consensus on how nutritional therapy should be provided. No improvement was observed in methodological quality of the more recent guidelines compared to the older ones. Conclusions: The methodological quality of clinical guidelines on malnutrition for cancer patients and the way they are reported need to be improved. To achieve this, developers should utilize available guideline assessment tools, such as the AGREE instrument, when writing or updating guidelines on this topic.     

Much variety and little evidence: a description of guidelines for doctor-patient communication

AIM: To explore the quality of the content of communication skills training programmes, we analysed and assessed guidelines for doctor-patient communication used in communication programmes for general practitioner (GP) trainees. METHOD: Guidelines for doctor-patient communication were extracted from educational materials supplied by the 8 Dutch university centres for vocational training in general practice. Four themes guided the analysis of the guidelines: content, type of contact, format and structure and status. The quality of the guidelines was assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument, a validated measurement instrument for guideline quality. RESULTS: We identified 18 guidelines. Guideline content covered 64-100% of the GP qualification requirements. General consultations and specific situations were the subject of 9 guidelines each. Format and structure differed between guidelines. Guideline use seemed not to be obligatory. AGREE scores were low. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines for doctor-patient communication are difficult to identify in materials of GP training courses. Guideline quality is low; guidelines are little evidence-based and little attention has been paid to applicability and involvement of users. GP qualification requirements are only partly covered. Guidelines differed substantially without clarity about the reasons behind different choices. Guideline status was low. RECOMMENDATIONS: When studying the factors that influence training effect, the quality of training content should be considered as well as teaching methods. Communication skills training programmes should be based on evidence-based guidelines that have been developed according to similar standards as for medical technical guidelines.     

Predictors of high quality clinical practice guidelines: examples in oncology.

OBJECTIVE: Clinical practice guidelines are widely used as effective tools for improving the management of patients with cancer. However, there is increasing concern about variation in guideline quality. In this study we identified predictors for high-quality guidelines in oncology. DESIGN: The quality scores for 32 oncology guidelines from 13 countries were determined by four independent appraisers using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) instrument. MAIN MEASURE: : The contribution to the quality score of six characteristics of guidelines and three of guideline developing organizations was then assessed using analysis of variance and stepwise linear regression analysis. RESULTS: Some guideline and organizational characteristics were shown to be responsible for a large part of the variations in quality scores. The availability of background information was the strongest predictor of quality with an explained variance ranging from 17% ("Applicability") to 67% ("Rigour of development"). High-quality guidelines were more often produced by government-supported organizations and/or within a structured, coordinated programme. The other characteristics (publication year, type of guideline, format, level of care, and scope) were not independent predictors of quality. CONCLUSIONS: Guidelines should provide more explicit information about the context of their development and methods used in order to improve their quality and thus encourage their use in clinical practice.     

Evidence-based practice guidelines in OHS: are they agree-able?

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the acceptance, validity, reliability and feasibility of the AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines and REsearch and Evaluation) instrument to assess the quality of evidence-based practice guidelines for occupational physicians. In total, 6 practice guidelines of the Netherlands Society of Occupational Medicine (NVAB) were appraised by 20 occupational health professionals and experts in guideline development or implementation. Although appraisers often disagreed on individual item scores, the internal consistency and interrater reliability for most domains was sufficient. The AGREE criteria were in general considered relevant and no major suggestions for additional items for use in the context of occupational health were brought up. The domain scores for the individual guidelines show a wide variety: 'applicability' had on average the lowest mean score (53%) while 'scope and purpose' had the highest one (87%). Low scores indicate where improvements are possible and necessary, e.g. by providing more information about the development. Key experts in occupational health report that AGREE is a relevant and easy to use instrument to evaluate quality aspects and the included criteria provide a good framework to develop or update evidence-based practice guidelines in the field of occupational health.     

Characteristics of high-quality guidelines: evaluation of 86 clinical guidelines developed in ten European countries and Canada

OBJECTIVES: To identify predictors of high-quality clinical practice guidelines. METHODS: A total of 86 guidelines from 11 countries were assessed by four independent appraisers per guideline using the AGREE instrument (23 items). Six aspects of guideline development were considered to explain the variation in quality scores: care level (primary/secondary care), scope (diagnosis/treatment), type of guideline (new/update), year of publication, type of agency (governmental/professional), and whether the guideline was produced within a structured and coordinated program. RESULTS: Guidelines produced within a guideline program and by governmental agencies had higher scores than their counterparts. Differences in the applicability of the guidelines could not be explained by the variables studied. CONCLUSION: To ensure high quality, clinical guidelines should be produced within a structured and coordinated program. Professional organizations or specialist societies that aim to develop guidelines may adopt quality criteria from leading guideline agencies.