Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30700479›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2019

Reporting, presentation and wording of recommendations in clinical practice guideline for gout: a systematic analysis.

Nan Yang, Yang Yu, Anqi Zhang, Janne Estill, Xiaoqin Wang, Mingfu Zheng, Qi Zhou, Jingyi Zhang, Xufei Luo, Changli Qian and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
8citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

14 authors.

Nan Yang *Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yang Yu *The Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Anqi ZhangThe Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Janne EstillInstitute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Xiaoqin WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Mingfu ZhengThe First People's Hospital of Lanzhou City, Lanzhou, China.
Qi ZhouThe First Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Jingyi ZhangSchool of Public health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Xufei LuoEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Changli QianSchool of Public health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yifang MaoThe Second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Qi WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yantao YangThe First People's Hospital of Lanzhou City, Lanzhou, China.
Yaolong ChenEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesWe systematically analysed recommendations from gout guidelines as an example, to provide a basis for developing a reporting standard of recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs).

designSystematic review without meta-analysis.

methodsWe systematically searched MEDLINE and all relevant guideline websites (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network, WHO, Guidelines International Network, DynaMed, UpTodate, Best Practice) from their inception to January 2017 to identify and select gout CPGs. We used search terms such as 'gout', 'hyperuricemia' and 'guideline'. We included the eligible CPGs of gout according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria after screening titles, abstracts and full texts. The characteristics of recommendations reported in the included guidelines were extracted and analysed.

resultsA total of 15 gout guidelines with a range of 5-80 recommendations were retrieved. Several indicators were used in the gout guidelines to facilitate identification of recommendations, including grouping all recommendations in a summary section, formatting recommendations in a particular or special way, using locating words for recommendations and indicating the strength of recommendation and quality of evidence. We found some components commonly used in the recommendations. The wording of recommendations varied across guidelines. Recommendations were detailed and explained in the section of rationale and explanation of recommendations. In some guidelines, recommendations were accompanied with other material to assist their reporting.

conclusionsVariability and inconsistency were found on the reporting and presentation of recommendations in gout guidelines. Several points for reporting recommendation can be summarised. First, we suggested summarising and highlighting the core recommendations in a guideline. Second, guideline developers should try to structure and write recommendations reasonably. Third, it was necessary to detail and explain the recommendations and their rationale. Finally, describing and providing other potential useful contents was also a helpful way for clear reporting.

Indexed as

Practice Guidelines as TopicGoutHumanschecklistclinical practice guidelinesgoutrecommendationRIGHT

Identifiers

PMID30700479
PMCPMC6352818

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.