IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0207580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine

Author

Listed:
  • Xia Yun
  • Chen Yaolong
  • Zeng Zhao
  • Zhou Qi
  • Wang Yangyang
  • Xie Runshen
  • Xie Xiuli
  • Li Hui

Abstract

Objective: To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Methods: A systematic search was undertaken to extract CPGs for TCM. The RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare) statement was used to calculate scores for the reporting quality in terms of domains and items, followed by a subgroup analysis of the results and determination of the correlation between the RIGHT and AGREE II (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II) scores. Results: Overall, 539 TCM CPGs were included. (1) The mean scores (Med, IQR) for each RIGHT domain were as follows: basic information (4, 1), background (3, 2), evidence (0, 0), recommendations (2, 2), review and quality assurance (0, 0), funding and declaration and management of interests (0, 0.5), and other information (0, 0). (2) The items with a low reporting rate ( 90%) included 1a, 1b, 1c, 7b, 13a, and 13b. (3) In recent years, the reporting quality of TCM CPGs has improved, and there was a significant difference among the organizations (P = 0.000), where that of the updated versions was greater than that of the historical versions (P = 0.047). (4) The RIGHT and AGREE II scores were positively correlated (P = 0.014). Conclusions: At present, although the reporting quality of TCM CPGs is improving, the overall quality remains suboptimal. Guideline developers should strictly follow the evidence-based process of developing guidelines and should follow the RIGHT statement to produce a standardized report when writing guidelines.

Suggested Citation

  • Xia Yun & Chen Yaolong & Zeng Zhao & Zhou Qi & Wang Yangyang & Xie Runshen & Xie Xiuli & Li Hui, 2018. "Using the RIGHT statement to evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in traditional Chinese medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(11), pages 1-11, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207580
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0207580
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207580
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0207580&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0207580?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0207580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.