论文部分内容阅读
目的评价2012~2013年中国大陆地区中文期刊发表的中国临床实践指南质量,并与之前的指南质量进行比较。方法计算机检索CBM、CNKI和Wan Fang Data,收集发表在大陆期刊上的临床实践指南,检索时限为2012年1月1日至2013年12月31日。由2位评价员按照纳入与排除标准独立筛选文献和提取资料后,采用AGREEⅡ工具对纳入指南的质量进行评价。结果共纳入指南78篇,其中2012年37篇,2013年41篇。AGREEⅡ各领域平均得分分别为:范围和目的(领域一)24%;参与人员(领域二)11%;制定严谨性(领域三)7%;表达明晰性(领域四)32%;应用性(领域五)7%;编辑独立性(领域六)4%。亚组分析结果显示:发表在CSCD期刊的指南在5个领域得分均高于非CSCD期刊(除“领域五:应用性”外);受资助的指南在4个领域得分(除“领域二:参与人员”和“领域五:应用性”外)均高于未受到资助的指南;提及循证方法制定的指南各领域得分明显高于未提及的指南;2013年发表的指南在5个领域(除“领域六:编辑独立性”外)的得分均高于2012年发表的指南。结论 2012~2013年国内指南相对之前的指南质量有所提升,但与国际平均水平相比还存在较大差距。国内指南制定者应该重视和参考国际上关于指南制定方面的科学方法,并在制定过程中参考AGREEⅡ的规范制定和报告指南。
Objective To evaluate the quality of Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in the Chinese-language periodicals in mainland China from 2012 to 2013 and compare them with the previous ones. Methods CBM, CNKI and Wan Fang Data were retrieved by computer, and the clinical practice guidelines published in Chinese periodicals were collected. The search period was from January 1, 2012 to December 31, 2013. After two reviewers independently screened the documents and extracted data according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, the quality of the included guidelines was evaluated using the AGREE II tool. Results A total of 78 guidelines were included, of which 37 in 2012 and 41 in 2013. The average score of each field of AGREEⅡ is as follows: scope and purpose (area 1) 24%; participant (area 2) 11%; establishment of rigor (area 3) 7%; clarity of presentation (area 4) 32%; applicability Field V) 7%; editorial independence (Field VI) 4%. Subgroup analyzes showed that the guidelines published in CSCD journals scored higher in five fields than non-CSCD journals (except for “field five: applicability”); the sponsored guidelines scored in four areas (except “ Field 2: Participants ”Field 5: Applicability“ outperformed unscreened guidelines; references to evidence-based methodologies developed significantly higher scores in all fields than guidelines not mentioned; 2013 Published guidelines in all five areas (except for ”Field Six: Editorial Independence") scored higher than the guidelines published in 2012. Conclusion The quality of the guideline of the domestic guidelines from 2012 to 2013 has been improved, but there is still a big gap compared with the international average level. Domestic guideline makers should pay attention to and reference international scientific methods for guideline development, and make reference to the guidelines of AGREEⅡand formulate guidelines in the process of formulation.