ArticleJMA journal2022
Evaluation of Clinical Practice Guidelines for Rare Diseases in Japan.
Article in JMA journal, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- A systematic scoping review on quality criteria for clinical practice guidelines for rare diseases.Systematic reviews · 2026Article
- Incidental diagnosis of Fabry disease by detecting mulberry bodies in a Bangladeshi male with infertility and residing in Japan: a case report highlighting clinical and economic challenges.Journal of rural medicine : JRM · 2025Article
- Integrated Care for People Living With Rare Disease: A Scoping Review on Primary Care Models in Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development Countries.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: The insufficient quantity and quality of clinical epidemiological evidence in the field of rare diseases have posed methodological challenges to develop clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). Guideline development groups struggle to provide patients and their families with beneficial guidance, such as that for medical care and in complex circumstances. Motivated by the challenges, we focused on information on resources for supporting the daily and social life to improve the CPGs for users. We aimed to assess the methodological quality of CPGs for rare diseases in Japan and to evaluate information on resources to support the daily and social life in the CPGs. Methods: We conducted a systematic search using PubMed, three electronic Japanese databases, and two hand-searched sources in Japan. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II instrument with six domains was used to assess the methodological quality of the CPGs. A content analysis of the CPG text was conducted using five keywords as information on non-medical resources, e.g., "Intractable Disease Consultation Support Center," "Japan Intractable Disease Information Center," and "Patient Association." Results: A total of 55 CPGs met the inclusion criteria. Among four domains of AGREE II with low scores (Stakeholder Involvement, Rigor of Development, Applicability, and Editorial Independence), Rigor of Development had the lowest median score. As for information on non-medical resources, 41 CPGs included at least 1 of the 5 keywords, while 14 CPGs included none. Conclusions: At the Rigor of Development domain, methodological challenges may have resulted in an insufficient description of items regarding the translation evidence to recommendations. As the sufficiency of five keywords as information on non-medical resources could be improved, the information will be advocative as clues to provide pragmatic guidance, particularly for rare diseases with limited medical evidence.
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.