Ke Han, Pengyue Zhao, Shimin Chen, Yinghui Bao, Boyan Li, Jiajun Du, Junwei Wu, Huikai Li, Ningli Chai, Xiaohui Du, Enqiang Linghu, Miao Liu
{"title":"系统分析支持中国胃肠疾病临床实践指南的证据水平。","authors":"Ke Han, Pengyue Zhao, Shimin Chen, Yinghui Bao, Boyan Li, Jiajun Du, Junwei Wu, Huikai Li, Ningli Chai, Xiaohui Du, Enqiang Linghu, Miao Liu","doi":"10.1016/j.medj.2024.05.006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform healthcare decisions and improve patient care. However, an evaluation of guidelines on gastrointestinal diseases (GIDs) is lacking. This study aimed to systematically analyze the level of evidence (LOE) supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CPGs for GIDs were identified by systematically searching major databases. Data on LOEs and classes of recommendations (CORs) were extracted. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, LOEs were categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, whereas CORs were classified as strong or weak. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of LOEs and CORs across different subtopics and assess changes in evidence quality over time.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Only 27.9% of these recommendations were supported by a high LOE, whereas approximately 70% were strong recommendations. There was a significant disparity among different subtopics in the proportion of strong recommendations supported by a high LOE. The number of guidelines has increased in the past 5 years, but there has been a concomitant decline in the proportion of recommendations supported by a high LOE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a general lack of high-quality evidence supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs, and there are inconsistencies in strong recommendations that have not improved. This study identified areas requiring further research, emphasizing the need to bridge these gaps and promote the conduct of high-quality clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2503604 and 2022YFC2503605) and Special Topics in Military Health Care (22BJZ25).</p>","PeriodicalId":29964,"journal":{"name":"Med","volume":" ","pages":"1112-1122.e3"},"PeriodicalIF":12.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Systematic analysis of levels of evidence supporting Chinese clinical practice guidelines for gastrointestinal disease.\",\"authors\":\"Ke Han, Pengyue Zhao, Shimin Chen, Yinghui Bao, Boyan Li, Jiajun Du, Junwei Wu, Huikai Li, Ningli Chai, Xiaohui Du, Enqiang Linghu, Miao Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.medj.2024.05.006\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform healthcare decisions and improve patient care. However, an evaluation of guidelines on gastrointestinal diseases (GIDs) is lacking. This study aimed to systematically analyze the level of evidence (LOE) supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>CPGs for GIDs were identified by systematically searching major databases. Data on LOEs and classes of recommendations (CORs) were extracted. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, LOEs were categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, whereas CORs were classified as strong or weak. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of LOEs and CORs across different subtopics and assess changes in evidence quality over time.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Only 27.9% of these recommendations were supported by a high LOE, whereas approximately 70% were strong recommendations. There was a significant disparity among different subtopics in the proportion of strong recommendations supported by a high LOE. The number of guidelines has increased in the past 5 years, but there has been a concomitant decline in the proportion of recommendations supported by a high LOE.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is a general lack of high-quality evidence supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs, and there are inconsistencies in strong recommendations that have not improved. This study identified areas requiring further research, emphasizing the need to bridge these gaps and promote the conduct of high-quality clinical trials.</p><p><strong>Funding: </strong>This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2503604 and 2022YFC2503605) and Special Topics in Military Health Care (22BJZ25).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":29964,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Med\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1112-1122.e3\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":12.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-13\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Med\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medj.2024.05.006\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/17 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Med","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.medj.2024.05.006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/17 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
Systematic analysis of levels of evidence supporting Chinese clinical practice guidelines for gastrointestinal disease.
Background: Clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) inform healthcare decisions and improve patient care. However, an evaluation of guidelines on gastrointestinal diseases (GIDs) is lacking. This study aimed to systematically analyze the level of evidence (LOE) supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs.
Methods: CPGs for GIDs were identified by systematically searching major databases. Data on LOEs and classes of recommendations (CORs) were extracted. According to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system, LOEs were categorized as high, moderate, low, or very low, whereas CORs were classified as strong or weak. Statistical analyses were conducted to determine the distribution of LOEs and CORs across different subtopics and assess changes in evidence quality over time.
Findings: Only 27.9% of these recommendations were supported by a high LOE, whereas approximately 70% were strong recommendations. There was a significant disparity among different subtopics in the proportion of strong recommendations supported by a high LOE. The number of guidelines has increased in the past 5 years, but there has been a concomitant decline in the proportion of recommendations supported by a high LOE.
Conclusions: There is a general lack of high-quality evidence supporting Chinese CPGs for GIDs, and there are inconsistencies in strong recommendations that have not improved. This study identified areas requiring further research, emphasizing the need to bridge these gaps and promote the conduct of high-quality clinical trials.
Funding: This study was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2022YFC2503604 and 2022YFC2503605) and Special Topics in Military Health Care (22BJZ25).
期刊介绍:
Med is a flagship medical journal published monthly by Cell Press, the global publisher of trusted and authoritative science journals including Cell, Cancer Cell, and Cell Reports Medicine. Our mission is to advance clinical research and practice by providing a communication forum for the publication of clinical trial results, innovative observations from longitudinal cohorts, and pioneering discoveries about disease mechanisms. The journal also encourages thought-leadership discussions among biomedical researchers, physicians, and other health scientists and stakeholders. Our goal is to improve health worldwide sustainably and ethically.
Med publishes rigorously vetted original research and cutting-edge review and perspective articles on critical health issues globally and regionally. Our research section covers clinical case reports, first-in-human studies, large-scale clinical trials, population-based studies, as well as translational research work with the potential to change the course of medical research and improve clinical practice.