ArticleBMC nursing2026
Methodological quality of nursing guidelines in China: an AGREE II and RIGHT appraisal (2023-2024).
Article in BMC nursing, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo systematically evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and expert consensus statements in the Chinese nursing field published in journals from 2023 to 2024.
methodsWe searched databases including CNKI, WanFang Data, SinoMed/CBM, PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, supplemented by searches of guideline repositories (e.g., GIN) and academic organization websites. The search period spanned from January 1, 2023, to December 31, 2024. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data, and assessed quality using AGREE II and RIGHT tools.
resultsA total of 28 guidelines and consensus statements were included. The mean standardized percentages for AGREE II domains were: Scope and Purpose, 46.74%; Stakeholder, Involvement 32.13%; Rigor of Development, 30.64%; Clarity of Presentation, 39.22%; Applicability, 29.42%; and Editorial Independence, 42.77%. RIGHT reporting rates were highest for items 1a, 1b, 3, 4, 18a, and 19a 28/28 (100%). Although the small number of guidelines (n = 5) limits inferential strength, descriptive comparisons suggested consistently higher scores in guidelines than in consensus statements across all AGREE II domains and in total RIGHT score (P < 0.05), and these findings should be regarded as exploratory. Evidence-based documents outperformed expert opinion-based documents (P < 0.05). Team size was positively correlated with the RIGHT score (P < 0.05).
conclusionCurrent guidelines and consensus statements in the domestic nursing field exhibit significant shortcomings in methodological rigor, reporting completeness, and clinical applicability. Future development processes should strictly adhere to AGREE II and RIGHT standards, strengthen evidence-based methodology, emphasize multidisciplinary collaboration and patient involvement, and enhance reporting transparency and clinical translation support.
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.