ReviewJournal of thoracic disease2024
Clinical practice guidelines in adult diagnostic flexible bronchoscopy: systematic review of the literature and quality appraisal with AGREE II.
Review in Journal of thoracic disease, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- [Expert consensus on airway lavage therapy for adult burn patients (2026 edition)].Zhonghua shao shang yu chuang mian xiu fu za zhi · 2026Article
- Flexible bronchoscopy in the intensive care unit: the FLEXICARE survey.ERJ open research · 2026Article
- The Role of High-Flow Nasal Cannula (HFNC) During Flexible Bronchoscopy in Adult Patients with Moderate Respiratory Dysfunctions: An Observational Study.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Standardized pre-bronchoscopy mechanical power and KPC resistance as predictors of mortality in ventilated ICU patients: a retrospective cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Numerous guidelines pertaining to adult diagnostic flexible bronchoscopes (FBs) have been published by Chinese and international organizations, but, to date, there has been no report on their quality. This study aimed to evaluate the quality of existing guidelines for adult diagnostic FB examination using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation Instrument II (AGREE II), and its main recommendations were summarized to provide a reference for clinical professionals. Methods: A search was conducted for guidelines related to adult diagnostic FB published in China and internationally. Three researchers independently evaluated the six fields in AGREE II and verified the internal reliability by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The included guidelines were grouped according to whether the first author's nationality was Chinese, divided into Chinese and international groups, and independent sample Results: After a systematic literature search, a total of 11 guidelines were included. The quality level of 10 guidelines was rated as B, which could be recommended after slight modification and improvement. The quality level of one guideline was rated as C, which was not recommended, and the non-quality level was rated as A. The scores of Chinese guidelines were generally lower than those of international ones, and the differences in domain 3 (rigor) (P=0.001) and domain 5 (applicability) (P=0.04) were statistically significant. The ICC of the final evaluation was greater than 0.8, indicating that the researchers were almost completely consistent. Conclusions: Few existing clinical guidelines meet the standards of quality established by the AGREE II appraisal instrument; Chinese guidelines are generally of a lower quality than those conducted in countries other than China.
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.