ArticleEndocrine2019
Reporting quality of 2014-2018 clinical practice guidelines on diabetes according to the RIGHT checklist.
Article in Endocrine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Reporting quality evaluation of the stroke clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of squamous cell carcinoma of the head and neck: an assessment based on the AGREE II, AGREE-REX tools and the RIGHT checklist.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Article
- The development of clinical guidelines in China: insights from a national survey.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- Evaluation of reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for acute myeloid leukemia using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Reporting quality of practice guidelines on colorectal cancer: evaluation using the RIGHT reporting 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
- Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on gliomas using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Critical appraisal of the quality of clinical practice guidelines for idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
- Reporting quality of chronic kidney disease practice guidelines according to the RIGHT statement: a systematic analysis.Therapeutic advances in chronic disease · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveReporting Items for Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklist was used as a tool to assess the reporting quality of 2014-2018 CPGs on diabetes treatment, aiming to promote the application of RIGHT and improve the reporting quality of future guidelines.
methodsWe searched Chinese Biomedical Literature Service System (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP database, Medline, Embase, Allied, and Complementary MEdicine Database (AMED), and Medlive and Google Scholar (Google academics), and collected published CPGs on diabetes with published date during 1st January, 2014 and 7th November, 2018. CPGs on diabetes issued since 2014 were included and filtered by two reviewers independently. Then the basic information extraction and RIGHT evaluation of the included CPG are carried out.
resultsA total of 34 guidelines were included, out of which 7 are for Chinese and 27 for other countries. Overall, basic information (domain 1) got the highest (64.66%) reporting rate, while financing and conflict-of-interest statements and management (domain 6) got the lowest (8.1%). For all guidelines, classification of guidelines (item 1c) was sufficiently reported, and description of the specific sources of funding for all stages of guideline development (item 18a) was not reported. For Chinese CPGs, financing and conflict-of-interest statements and management (domain 6) was most insufficiently reported, and only identification of guideline in the title (item 1a), corresponding information of the developer or author (item 4), description of basic epidemiology (item 5), and subgroup description (item 7b) out of 22 items were better reported than foreign guidelines.
conclusionsOverall, the CPGs on diabetes during 2014-2018 adhered to ~41% RIGHT checklist, of which Chinese CPGs adhered less than that of foreign guidelines. It is suggested that the RIGHT reporting checklist should be endorsed and used by CPG developers to ensure higher quality and adequate use of guidelines.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.