ArticleHealth research policy and systems2020
Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Improvement of Clinical Practice Guideline Appraisal by Human Experts and AI Agents by Using Structured Guidance: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis, and Validation Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Analysis of the Status and Trends of Chinese Clinical Practice Guideline Development Between 2010 and 2020: A Systematic Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Prospective registration of guidelines and consensus statements of traditional and integrative medicine: Current status and experience from the PREPARE platform.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Assessing the quality and integrating the evidence and strength of recommendations in the guidelines for gastric precancerous lesions.BMC cancer · 2025Article
- Protocol for the practice guideline for traditional Chinese medicine preventive treatment on insomnia disorder.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Improving WHO's understanding of WHO guideline uptake and use in Member States: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Article
- A quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines on breast cancer using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on melanoma using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Quality and consistency of clinical practice guidelines for treating children with COVID-19.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.