RIGHT-COI&F报告指南的可靠性和可用性:检查表的用户调查和测试

IF 7.3 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Yangqin Xun , Janne Estill , Dmitriy A. Sychev , Irina V. Poddubnaya , Ekaterina V. Yudina , Elie A. Akl , Joanne Khabsa , Nan Yang , Ping Wang , Zijun Wang , Xu Wang , Renfeng Su , Di Zhu , Ruitai Shao , Yaolong Chen , Liliya E. Ziganshina
{"title":"RIGHT-COI&F报告指南的可靠性和可用性:检查表的用户调查和测试","authors":"Yangqin Xun ,&nbsp;Janne Estill ,&nbsp;Dmitriy A. Sychev ,&nbsp;Irina V. Poddubnaya ,&nbsp;Ekaterina V. Yudina ,&nbsp;Elie A. Akl ,&nbsp;Joanne Khabsa ,&nbsp;Nan Yang ,&nbsp;Ping Wang ,&nbsp;Zijun Wang ,&nbsp;Xu Wang ,&nbsp;Renfeng Su ,&nbsp;Di Zhu ,&nbsp;Ruitai Shao ,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen ,&nbsp;Liliya E. Ziganshina","doi":"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111790","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Recently, we published a reporting checklist for conflicts of interest (COI) and funding in practice guidelines and guideline organizations' policy documents, RIGHT for Conflicts of Interest and Funding (RIGHT-COI&amp;F). In this study, we examined the reliability and usability of this new tool in practice to assess reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We extracted a sample of guideline development organizations' COI and funding policies, and all guidelines developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) since 2019. We evaluated the adherence of these documents to the applicable items of RIGHT-COI&amp;F. External reliability was assessed with the Kappa coefficient. We also surveyed key interest-holders on the ease of understanding of the tool who were asked to score each item on a scale from 1 (very difficult to understand) to 7 (very easy to understand).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We evaluated the COI and funding policies of 28 guideline development organizations and 62 WHO guidelines. The mean Kappa value between the evaluators was 0.90 (full range 0.82–0.95), demonstrating good external reliability. Guideline policies adhered on average to half of the applicable items. The majority (77%) of WHO guidelines adhered to most applicable items. The mean times to evaluate policies and guidelines using the applicable items of the RIGHT-COI&amp;F checklist were 28 and 30 minutes, respectively. The survey was completed by 157 individuals. The mean scores for ease of understanding were greater than five for all items.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>RIGHT-COI&amp;F checklist demonstrated good reliability and usability when used to assess reporting of COI and funding in practice guidelines and guideline organizations' policy documents.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":51079,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","volume":"183 ","pages":"Article 111790"},"PeriodicalIF":7.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Reliability and usability of the RIGHT-COI&F reporting guideline: user survey and test of the checklist\",\"authors\":\"Yangqin Xun ,&nbsp;Janne Estill ,&nbsp;Dmitriy A. Sychev ,&nbsp;Irina V. Poddubnaya ,&nbsp;Ekaterina V. Yudina ,&nbsp;Elie A. Akl ,&nbsp;Joanne Khabsa ,&nbsp;Nan Yang ,&nbsp;Ping Wang ,&nbsp;Zijun Wang ,&nbsp;Xu Wang ,&nbsp;Renfeng Su ,&nbsp;Di Zhu ,&nbsp;Ruitai Shao ,&nbsp;Yaolong Chen ,&nbsp;Liliya E. Ziganshina\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111790\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>Recently, we published a reporting checklist for conflicts of interest (COI) and funding in practice guidelines and guideline organizations' policy documents, RIGHT for Conflicts of Interest and Funding (RIGHT-COI&amp;F). In this study, we examined the reliability and usability of this new tool in practice to assess reporting.</div></div><div><h3>Study Design and Setting</h3><div>We extracted a sample of guideline development organizations' COI and funding policies, and all guidelines developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) since 2019. We evaluated the adherence of these documents to the applicable items of RIGHT-COI&amp;F. External reliability was assessed with the Kappa coefficient. We also surveyed key interest-holders on the ease of understanding of the tool who were asked to score each item on a scale from 1 (very difficult to understand) to 7 (very easy to understand).</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>We evaluated the COI and funding policies of 28 guideline development organizations and 62 WHO guidelines. The mean Kappa value between the evaluators was 0.90 (full range 0.82–0.95), demonstrating good external reliability. Guideline policies adhered on average to half of the applicable items. The majority (77%) of WHO guidelines adhered to most applicable items. The mean times to evaluate policies and guidelines using the applicable items of the RIGHT-COI&amp;F checklist were 28 and 30 minutes, respectively. The survey was completed by 157 individuals. The mean scores for ease of understanding were greater than five for all items.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>RIGHT-COI&amp;F checklist demonstrated good reliability and usability when used to assess reporting of COI and funding in practice guidelines and guideline organizations' policy documents.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":51079,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"volume\":\"183 \",\"pages\":\"Article 111790\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625001234\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Clinical Epidemiology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0895435625001234","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

最近,我们在实践指南和指导组织的政策文件中发布了利益冲突(COI)和资金的报告清单,利益冲突和资金的权利(RIGHT of conflict of interest and funding, COI&;F)。在这项研究中,我们检验了这个新工具在评估报告实践中的可靠性和可用性。研究设计和设置我们提取了指南制定组织的COI和资助政策以及世界卫生组织(WHO)自2019年以来制定的所有指南的样本。我们评估了这些文件对权利coi &;F适用条款的依从性。外部信度用Kappa系数评估。我们还调查了关键利益相关者对工具的理解难易程度,他们被要求对每个项目进行评分,从1(非常难以理解)到7(非常容易理解)。结果我们评估了28个指南制定组织和62个WHO指南的COI和资助政策。评估者的Kappa值均值为0.90(全范围0.82-0.95),具有良好的外部信度。平均有一半的适用项目遵循指导方针政策。世卫组织指南的大多数(77%)坚持大多数适用项目。使用RIGHT-COI&;F检查表的适用项目评估政策和指导方针的平均时间分别为28分钟和30分钟。该调查共有157人完成。结论right -COI&;F检查表用于评估实践指南和指南组织政策文件中COI和资金的报告具有良好的可靠性和可用性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Reliability and usability of the RIGHT-COI&F reporting guideline: user survey and test of the checklist

Objectives

Recently, we published a reporting checklist for conflicts of interest (COI) and funding in practice guidelines and guideline organizations' policy documents, RIGHT for Conflicts of Interest and Funding (RIGHT-COI&F). In this study, we examined the reliability and usability of this new tool in practice to assess reporting.

Study Design and Setting

We extracted a sample of guideline development organizations' COI and funding policies, and all guidelines developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) since 2019. We evaluated the adherence of these documents to the applicable items of RIGHT-COI&F. External reliability was assessed with the Kappa coefficient. We also surveyed key interest-holders on the ease of understanding of the tool who were asked to score each item on a scale from 1 (very difficult to understand) to 7 (very easy to understand).

Results

We evaluated the COI and funding policies of 28 guideline development organizations and 62 WHO guidelines. The mean Kappa value between the evaluators was 0.90 (full range 0.82–0.95), demonstrating good external reliability. Guideline policies adhered on average to half of the applicable items. The majority (77%) of WHO guidelines adhered to most applicable items. The mean times to evaluate policies and guidelines using the applicable items of the RIGHT-COI&F checklist were 28 and 30 minutes, respectively. The survey was completed by 157 individuals. The mean scores for ease of understanding were greater than five for all items.

Conclusion

RIGHT-COI&F checklist demonstrated good reliability and usability when used to assess reporting of COI and funding in practice guidelines and guideline organizations' policy documents.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
12.00
自引率
6.90%
发文量
320
审稿时长
44 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Clinical Epidemiology strives to enhance the quality of clinical and patient-oriented healthcare research by advancing and applying innovative methods in conducting, presenting, synthesizing, disseminating, and translating research results into optimal clinical practice. Special emphasis is placed on training new generations of scientists and clinical practice leaders.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信