ArticleInternal medicine journal2025
Methodological and reporting quality of Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand clinical guidance documents
Article in Internal medicine journal, 2025. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The Thoracic Society of Australia and New Zealand (TSANZ) is the leading Australasian professional society for respiratory medicine that develops clinical practice guidelines and position papers to advance lung health through improved clinical care and research efforts. Published TSANZ clinical guidance documents were identified from the online society repository until March 2023. Each document was independently scored using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) and the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) checklists for methodological and reporting quality respectively. Twenty-eight position papers and seven clinical practice guidelines were evaluated. The median overall methodological quality score for the AGREE II checklist was four out of a maximum of seven (interquartile range (IQR) 3.5-4.75). The majority of documents (97%) were recommended for use with or without modifications. The median overall reporting rate using the RIGHT checklist was 46% (IQR 40-54). Low-scoring items were rigour of evidence synthesis, focus on clinical implementation, conflict of interest declaration and clarity of methodology. Clinical practice guidelines scored significantly higher overall reporting quality than position papers (57% vs. 43%, P = 0.05), but not for the methodological quality scores (median number of high-scoring domains (>70%): 2 vs. 1, P = 0.13). Documents developed with methodologist involvement had significantly increased reporting (71% vs. 43%, P = 0.02) and methodological quality (median high-scoring domains: 4 vs. 1, P = 0.007), compared to those without. Based on AGREE II, most TSANZ clinical guidance documents are recommended for use, or for use with modifications. Applicability, stakeholder involvement and conflict of interest declarations are identified as areas for improvement in future documents.
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.