Analysis of reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer based on
1Department of Radiology, Beijing Friendship Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, China.
Objective:
The current study aimed to assess the reporting quality of the clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer based on the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist.
Methods:
We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP database, Wanfang Data, Chinese Biological Literature Service System, PubMed, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Elsevier clinicalkey, BMJ Database, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, World Health Organization Network and other websites. We collected clinical practice guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer with published between 1 January 2017 and 1 April 2021 after release of the RIGHT checklist. Two reviewers extracted the basic information independently and conducted a RIGHT evaluation.
Results:
Eighteen guidelines/consensuses were included, 10 from China and 8 from other countries. The average reporting rate was 74.1%±11.2%. Thirteen items had 100% reporting rate, and the reporting rate for items No. 16 (11.1%), 17 (16.7%) and 18b (22.2%) was low. Basic information had the highest reporting rate (100%), whereas review and quality assurance had the lowest (13.9%). The average reporting rate of guidelines/consensuses published in other countries was higher than in China [p=0.005; odds ration (OR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.07-1.28]. The average reporting rate of the guidelines was higher than that of the consensus statements (p<0.001; OR 1.20, 95% CI 1.10-1.31). The reporting rates of guidelines/consensuses focused on whole body (79.0%±12.7%) were higher than local organ (69.2%±7.3%) metastases (p=0.005; OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.04-1.25).
Conclusions:
The quality of reporting using the RIGHT checklist varied among the guidelines/consensuses on metastatic colorectal cancer. Low-quality items were external review and quality assurance. Developers of guidelines/consensuses should aim to improve the reporting quality in the future.
More Related Videos
Related Concept Videos
01:30Guidelines for Nursing Documentation I
Factual:
The following points emphasize the significance of upholding accurate and unbiased documentation in healthcare.
01:26Guidelines for Nursing Documentation II
Timely documentation is crucial to ensure continuity of care for patients. Any delays in recording or reporting medical information can result in medical errors and even adverse patient outcomes. From medication administration to diagnostic test results, every detail must be accurately and promptly documented to provide the best possible care for patients.
01:21Cancer Survival Analysis
01:23Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast,...
01:15Methods of Documentation VI: Case Management Model
For example, a patient with a chronic...
01:11Guidelines for Writing Outcome
Patient outcomes reflect the patient's response to the goal rather than what the nurse aims to achieve. Terminology should be observable and measurable to avoid the reader's interpretation. The desired outcome should be realistic and achievable in the designated care timeframe. Expected outcomes should align with adjunctive therapies. The outcome should enhance care...