Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42740741›Full record

ArticleClinical and public health guidelines2024

Methodology and reporting quality of patient and public versions of guidelines in China: A systematic review.

Hui Liu, Yuanyuan Yao, Nan Yang, Zijun Wang, Xufei Luo, Dongrui Peng, Huayu Zhang, Junxian Zhao, Hongfeng He, Xingrong Liu and 2 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical and public health guidelines, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

12 authors.

Hui LiuResearch Unit of Evidence-Based Evaluation and Guidelines (2021RU017), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medical Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Yuanyuan YaoResearch Unit of Evidence-Based Evaluation and Guidelines (2021RU017), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medical Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Nan YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Zijun WangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Xufei LuoEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Dongrui PengSchool of Public Health Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Huayu ZhangSchool of Public Health Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Junxian ZhaoSchool of Public Health Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Hongfeng HeSchool of Public Health Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Xingrong LiuSchool of Public Health Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.
Yaolong ChenResearch Unit of Evidence-Based Evaluation and Guidelines (2021RU017), Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, School of Basic Medical Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9841-5233
Janne EstillEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences Lanzhou University Lanzhou Gansu China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: The development of patient and public versions of guidelines (PVGs) in China is still in its early stages. The aim of this article is to systematically identify the PVGs published or released in China, analyse their development methods, and assess their reporting quality. Methods: We searched five major literature databases and conducted supplementary searches to identify all PVGs published or released by 8 January 2023 in China. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we analysed the development methodology and evaluated the reporting quality of the included PVGs using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare-Public or Patient Versions of Guidelines (RIGHT-PVG). We reported this systematic review in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Results: A total of 3795 records were first identified, and 17 PVGs were included. Nine PVGs reported their development methodology: seven used de novo development (similar to developing clinical practice guidelines [CPGs]), and two rewrote the recommendations of an existing CPG. The reporting quality differed substantially between the PVGs. The PVGs adhered to between 8 and 16 (47.1%-94.1%) of the 17 RIGHT-PVG items, with a median of 9. All PVGs specified the topic addressed in the PVGs, introduced the target condition, described the purpose, scope and target users and had precise recommendations. In contrast, none of the PVGs listed questions for patients to ask their healthcare providers. Conclusions: Only few PVGs have so far been released in China. Most PVGs were developed de novo from the evidence, while some were instead rewritten from an existing CPG. In addition, we encourage PVGs developers to follow RIGHT-PVG checklist when writing the guidelines in the future.

Indexed as

Chinapatient and public versions of guidelinespatient guidelines

Identifiers

PMID42740741
PMCPMC13563349

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.