Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jan 20, 2026

A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Evaluation of the quality of guidelines for assisted reproductive technology using the RIGHT checklist: A
Yujie Xiao1, Li Jiang2, Yajing Tong3
1The Second Medical School of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China; Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China.
Introduction:
In recent years, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has developed rapidly, leading to an increasing number of clinical practice guidelines in this field. However, the reporting quality of current clinical practice guidelines in ART is still unknown. Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of ART using the RIGHT checklist.
Method:
Relevant guidelines were identified by electronic search of PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wan Fang Database and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from the beginning of the database to October, 2017. We also searched the websites of the guideline development organizations, including Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as from two medical associations, including the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We used Google Scholar to find additional clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as well. Two investigators searched the database, selected guidelines independently based on the inclusion criteria, and extracted the relevant information.
Result:
Fifteen guidelines (i.e. six developed by individual institutions and 9 by associations) were included. On average, 12.7 out of 35 items in the RIGHT standard (36.3%) were reported in each guideline. Five items were not reported by any of these guidelines. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (i.e. Basic information; Background; Evidence; Recommendations; Review and quality assurance; Funding and declaration and management of interests; Other information) were 46.7%, 40.8%, 45.3%, 29.5%, 53.3%, 10.0%, 26.7%, respectively.
Conclusion:
At present, the reporting quality of guidelines for ART is poor, especially regarding the funding. In the future guideline development, more consideration should be given to reporting, dissemination and implementation.
Related Concept Videos
Cross-Sectional Research
Profile Leveling and Cross Sections
Spinal Cord: Cross-sectional Anatomy
Gray Matter and its Components
Central to the gray matter is...
Reproductive Cloning
Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer
In SCNT, an egg cell is taken from an animal and its nucleus is removed, creating an enucleated egg. Then a somatic...
Crossing Over
The homologous pairs of sister chromosomes—one from the maternal and one from the paternal genome—then begin to align alongside each other lengthwise, matching corresponding DNA positions in a process...
Monohybrid Crosses

