ArticleAnnals of translational medicine2021
Evaluation of the reporting quality of guidelines for gastric cancer using the RIGHT checklist.
Article in Annals of translational medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- Reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on head and neck cancer: a systematic review.Translational cancer research · 2022Review
- Quality Assessment of Cancer Pain Clinical Practice Guidelines.Frontiers in oncology · 2022Review
- Evaluation of reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia using the RIGHT checklist.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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundGastric cancer is the fifth most common type of cancer globally. We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of gastric cancer.
methodsWe searched Medline (via PubMed), China Biology Medicine, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure and WanFang databases and the websites of the main guideline development organizations from 2018 to 2020 for guidelines on gastric cancer. Data were extracted and the reporting quality evaluated by two researchers independently using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist. We assessed the compliance of the guidelines to each of the 35 items of RIGHT and summarized the reporting proportions of the seven domains of RIGHT.
resultsEighteen guidelines were included. The mean proportion of appropriately reported RIGHT items was 52.4%. Among the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, Basic information had the highest reporting rate (78.7%), and Review and quality assurance domain the lowest rate (16.7%). The domains Evidence (40.0%), Funding and declaration and management of interests (43.1%), and Other information (31.5%) had also reporting rates below 50%. Two RIGHT items (17 and 19b) were not reported by any of the guidelines.
conclusionsThe reporting quality of gastric cancer guidelines published in the years 2018-2020 was suboptimal, especially regarding the reporting of review, quality assurance and evidence. Guideline developers should pay attention on rigorous reporting following international standard to improve the quality of guidelines.
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.