Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27164291›Full record

ReviewChest2016

A Critical Review of the Quality of Cough Clinical Practice Guidelines.

Mei Jiang, Wei-Jie Guan, Zhang-Fu Fang, Yan-Qing Xie, Jia-Xing Xie, Hao Chen, Dang Wei, Ke-Fang Lai, Nan-Shan Zhong

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Chest, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Assessment of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for allergic rhinitis.European archives of oto-rhino-laryngology : official journal of the European Federation of Oto-Rhino-Laryngological Societies (EUFOS) : affiliated with the German Society for Oto-Rhino-Laryngology - Head and Neck Surgery · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Migrant Healthcare Guidelines: A Systematic Quality Assessment.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2019
    Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Mei JiangState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Wei-Jie GuanState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Zhang-Fu FangState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Yan-Qing XieState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Jia-Xing XieState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.
Hao ChenThe Second Clinical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, China.
Dang WeiEvidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Key Laboratory of Evidence Based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou, China.
Ke-Fang LaiState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: klai@163.com.
Nan-Shan ZhongState Key Laboratory of Respiratory Disease, National Clinical Research Center for Respiratory Disease, Guangzhou Institute of Respiratory Diseases, First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) have been developed to provide health-care practitioners with the best possible evidence, but the quality of these CPGs varies greatly.

objectiveThe goal of this study was to systematically evaluate the quality of cough CPGs and identify gaps limiting evidence-based practice.

methodsSystematic searches were conducted to identify cough CPGs in guideline databases, developers' Websites, and Medline. Four reviewers independently evaluated eligible guidelines by using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II assessment tool. Agreement among reviewers was measured by using the intraclass correlation coefficient. The number of recommendations, strength of recommendation, and levels of evidence were determined.

resultsFifteen cough CPGs were identified. An overall high degree of agreement among reviewers was observed (intraclass correlation coefficient, 0.82 [95% CI, 0.79-0.85]). The quality ranged from good to acceptable in the scope and purpose (mean, 72%; range, 54%-93%) and clarity and presentation (mean, 68%; range, 50%-90%) domains but not in stakeholder involvement (mean, 36%; range, 18%-90%), rigor of development (mean, 36%; range, 9%-93%), applicability (mean, 23%; range, 9%-83%), and editorial independence domains (mean, 24%; range, 0-96%). Seven guidelines (46.7%) were considered "strongly recommended" or "recommended with modifications" for clinical practice. More than 70% of recommendations were based on nonrandomized studies (Level C, 30.4%) and expert opinion (Level D, 41.3%).

conclusionsThe quality of cough CPGs is variable, and recommendations are largely based on low-quality evidence. There is significant room for improvement to develop high-quality guidelines, which urgently warrants first-class research to minimize the vital gaps in the evidence for formulation of cough CPGs.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineProfessional Practice GapsAcute DiseaseChronic DiseaseCoughHumansPractice Guidelines as TopicAGREE instrumentclinical practice guidelinescough

Identifiers

PMID27164291

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.