[Scientific, transparent and applicable rankings of Chinese pathological guidelines and consensus published in the medical journals in 2022].

Q3 Medicine
X H Shi, S X Wang, Z Wang, J Wang, Z H Zhang, Y P Liu, H Y Zhang, H W Gao, X Y Zhou, Q Rao, L Liang, X H Yao, D G Liu, Z Y Liang
{"title":"[Scientific, transparent and applicable rankings of Chinese pathological guidelines and consensus published in the medical journals in 2022].","authors":"X H Shi, S X Wang, Z Wang, J Wang, Z H Zhang, Y P Liu, H Y Zhang, H W Gao, X Y Zhou, Q Rao, L Liang, X H Yao, D G Liu, Z Y Liang","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20231105-00333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The STAR tool was used to evaluate and analyze the science, transparency, and applicability of Chinese pathology guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022. There were a total of 18 pathology guidelines and consensuses published in 2022, including 1 guideline and 17 consensuses. The results showed that the guideline score was 21.83 points, lower than the overall guideline average (43.4 points). Consensus ratings scored an average of 27.87 points, on par with the overall consensus level (28.3 points). Areas that scored above the overall level were \"conflict of interest\" and \"working groups\", while areas that scored below the overall level were \"proposals\", \"funding\", \"evidence\", \"consensus approaches\" and \"accessibility\". To sum up, the formulation of pathology guidelines and consensuses in 2022 is not standardized, and the evidence retrieval process, evidence evaluation methods and grading criteria for recommendations on clinical issues are not provided in the formulation process; the process and method for reaching consensus are not provided, the plan is lacking, and registration is not carried out. It is therefore suggested that guidelines/consensus makers in the field of pathology should attach importance to evidence-based medical evidence, strictly follow guideline formulation methods and processes, further improve the scientific, applicable and transparent guidelines/consensuses in the field, and better provide support for clinicians and patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":35997,"journal":{"name":"中华病理学杂志","volume":"53 6","pages":"528-534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华病理学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20231105-00333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The STAR tool was used to evaluate and analyze the science, transparency, and applicability of Chinese pathology guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022. There were a total of 18 pathology guidelines and consensuses published in 2022, including 1 guideline and 17 consensuses. The results showed that the guideline score was 21.83 points, lower than the overall guideline average (43.4 points). Consensus ratings scored an average of 27.87 points, on par with the overall consensus level (28.3 points). Areas that scored above the overall level were "conflict of interest" and "working groups", while areas that scored below the overall level were "proposals", "funding", "evidence", "consensus approaches" and "accessibility". To sum up, the formulation of pathology guidelines and consensuses in 2022 is not standardized, and the evidence retrieval process, evidence evaluation methods and grading criteria for recommendations on clinical issues are not provided in the formulation process; the process and method for reaching consensus are not provided, the plan is lacking, and registration is not carried out. It is therefore suggested that guidelines/consensus makers in the field of pathology should attach importance to evidence-based medical evidence, strictly follow guideline formulation methods and processes, further improve the scientific, applicable and transparent guidelines/consensuses in the field, and better provide support for clinicians and patients.

[2022年在医学期刊上发表的中国病理学指南和共识的科学性、透明性和适用性排名]。
采用STAR工具对2022年发表在医学期刊上的中国病理学指南和共识的科学性、透明度和适用性进行评价和分析。2022年共发表病理学指南和共识18篇,其中指南1篇,共识17篇。结果显示,指南评分为21.83分,低于指南总体平均分(43.4分)。共识评级平均得分为 27.87 分,与总体共识水平(28.3 分)持平。得分高于总体水平的领域是 "利益冲突 "和 "工作组",得分低于总体水平的领域是 "建议"、"资金"、"证据"、"共识方法 "和 "可及性"。综上所述,2022 年病理指南和共识的制定不规范,制定过程中未提供临床问题建议的证据检索过程、证据评价方法和分级标准;未提供达成共识的过程和方法,缺乏计划,未进行注册。因此,建议病理领域的指南/共识制定者重视循证医学证据,严格遵循指南制定方法和流程,进一步提高该领域指南/共识的科学性、适用性和透明度,更好地为临床医生和患者提供支持。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
中华病理学杂志
中华病理学杂志 Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
1.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
10377
期刊介绍:
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信