ReviewTherapeutic advances in chronic disease2020
Reporting quality of chronic kidney disease practice guidelines according to the RIGHT statement: a systematic analysis.
Review in Therapeutic advances in chronic disease, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- An evidence map of clinical practice guideline recommendations and quality of non-pharmaceutical interventions for post-stroke emotional disorders.Frontiers in neurology · 2025Review
- 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
- 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
- An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
aimThe aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of chronic kidney disease (CKD) guidelines.
methodsPubMed, EMBASE, and guideline-related websites were searched from 2008 to 2019. The CKD guidelines were included. Two reviewers used the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist to assess the quality of guidelines and calculate the reporting proportion of each guideline.
resultsWe included 13 guidelines, of which 30.8% (4/13) were developed in Europe and about two-thirds (8/13) were published on their own website. The average quality of the 13 guidelines was 68.57%. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (i.e. basic information; background; evidence; recommendations; review and quality assurance; funding and declaration and management of interests; other information) were 65.39%, 81.73%, 63.08%, 69.23%, 53.85%, 63.46%, and 61.54%, respectively.
conclusionCKD guidelines had moderate reporting quality in some domains, but guideline developers should increase the reporting items in basic information, guideline evidence, and recommendations. The RIGHT checklist would be a useful tool to improve the reporting quality 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.