Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32641144›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020

Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines.

Xiaoqin Wang, Qi Zhou, Yaolong Chen, Nan Yang, Kevin Pottie, Yujie Xiao, Yajing Tong, Liang Yao, Qi Wang, Kehu Yang and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

11 authors.

Xiaoqin WangMichael G. DeGroote Institute for Pain Research and Care, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
Qi ZhouThe First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yaolong ChenEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. chenyaolong@vip.163.com.
Nan YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Kevin PottieBruyère Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
Yujie XiaoThe Second Hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Yajing TongSchool of Public Health of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China.
Liang YaoDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Qi WangDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Kehu YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China. kehuyangebm2006@126.com.
Susan L NorrisQuality of Norms and Standards Department, Science Division, World Health Organization, Geneva, Switzerland.

Funding

National Social Science Foundation of China 19ZDA142World Health Organization 001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWithout adequate reporting of research, valuable time and resources are wasted. In the same vein, adequate reporting of practice guidelines to optimise patient care is equally important. Our study examines the quality of reporting of published WHO guidelines, over time, using the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare) reporting checklist.

methodsWe examined English-language guidelines approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee from inception of the committee in 2007 until 31 December 2017. Pairs of independent, trained reviewers assessed the reporting quality of these guidelines. Descriptive data were summarised with frequencies and percentages.

resultsWe included 182 eligible guidelines. Overall, 25 out of the 34 RIGHT items were reported in 75% or more of the WHO guidelines. The reporting rates improved over time. Further, 90% of the guidelines reported document type in the title. The identification of evidence, the rationale for recommendations and the review process were reported in more than 80% of guidelines. The certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was assessed in 81% of the guidelines assessed. While 82% of guidelines reported funding sources, only 25% mentioned the role of funders.

conclusionsWHO guidelines provide adequate reporting of many of the RIGHT items and reporting has improved over time. WHO guidelines compare favourably to guidelines produced by other organisations. However, reporting can be further improved in a number of areas.

Indexed as

ChecklistDelivery of Health CareHealth FacilitiesHumansLanguageWorld Health OrganizationPractice guidelineReporting qualityRIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare)WHO

Identifiers

PMID32641144
PMCPMC7341641

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.