SynthesisFrontiers in pediatrics2026
Appraisal of congenital heart disease guidelines and consensus.
Synthesis in Frontiers in pediatrics, 2026. 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This is a systematic review of methodological and reporting quality of CHD guidelines and consensus statements.To systematically appraise the methodological and reporting quality of global congenital heart disease (CHD) guidelines and consensus statements, identifying key areas for improvement with implications for international guideline development. Methods: We searched Chinese and English databases up to November 2025. Four appraisers independently evaluated documents using AGREE II and RIGHT tools. Inter-rater reliability was assessed via ICC; subgroup analyses examined document type, methodology, developer number, and region. The systematic review protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD420261415315). Results: Among 33 included documents (17 CPGs, 16 ECSs), AGREE II scores varied substantially, highest in "Scope and Purpose" (58.42%) and lowest in "Applicability" (32.35%). RIGHT assessment showed sufficient basic reporting but critical gaps in evidence summaries, benefit-harm analyses, and update plans. Guidelines, evidence-based documents, and those with ≥50 developers scored higher. International guidelines outperformed Chinese ones in all quality domains (ICCs > 0.75). Conclusion: Current CHD guidance documents are purposeful but deficient in rigor, applicability, and transparency. Chinese guidelines lag behind international standards. Future development must adopt evidence-based methods, emphasize applicability, mandate patient and family engagement and improve reporting to effectively translate evidence into practice. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD420261415315, PROSPERO CRD420261415315.
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.