Grading Criteria of Evidence Quality and Recommendation Strength in Traditional Chinese Medicine/Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines and Expert Consensus
|更新时间:2023-03-13
|
Grading Criteria of Evidence Quality and Recommendation Strength in Traditional Chinese Medicine/Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines and Expert Consensus
Journal of Traditional Chinese MedicineVol. 64, Issue 6, Pages: 581-586(2023)
SHI Xiuqing,LI Hongyan,ZHOU Jie,et al.Grading Criteria of Evidence Quality and Recommendation Strength in Traditional Chinese Medicine/Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines and Expert Consensus[J].Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine,2023,64(06):581-586.
SHI Xiuqing,LI Hongyan,ZHOU Jie,et al.Grading Criteria of Evidence Quality and Recommendation Strength in Traditional Chinese Medicine/Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines and Expert Consensus[J].Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine,2023,64(06):581-586.DOI: 10.13288/j.11-2166/r.2023.06.008.
Grading Criteria of Evidence Quality and Recommendation Strength in Traditional Chinese Medicine/Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine Clinical Practice Guidelines and Expert Consensus
To analyze the application of grading criteria of evidence quality and recommendation strength in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM)/ integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus, and to provide reference for the formulation of CPGs and consensus in the future.
Methods
2
Databases including CNKI, WanFang, PubMed,Embase and Medlive.cn were searched to collect CPGs and expert consensus of TCM/ integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine published from January 1st, 2010 to December 31st, 2020. Two reviewers independently extracted data including the title and publication time of CPGs and expert consensus, the grading criteria of evidence quality, the grading criteria of recommendation strength, whether clearly indicated the grading of evidence quality and recommendation strength, whether indicated the grade of evidence quality, and whether indicated the strength of recommendation, and performed descriptive analysis.
Results
2
Totally, 245 CPGs and expert consensus were included, including 125 guidelines and 120 consensus. The grading criteria of both evidence quality and recommendation strength were indicated in 58 CPGs (46.4%) and 6 expert consensus (5%),with statistical difference (
P
<0.01). Senventy one of the included CPGs and consensus reported grading criteria of evidence quality, the most frequently used ones were WANG Shouchuan's revised version of Delphi literature basis and recommendation grading criteria (TCM) (32 CPGs and expert consensus, 45.1%), LIU Jianping's grading suggestions on both clinical evidence based on evidence body and recommendation (17 CPGs and expert consensus, 23.9%), and GRADE system (10 guidelines, 14.1%). Sixty four of the included CPGs and consensus reported the use of recommendation grading criteria, and the most commonly used ones were WANG Shouchuan's revised version of Delphi literature basis and recommendation grading criteria (30 CPGs and expert consensus, 46.9%) and GRADE system (13 CPGs and expert consensus, 20.3%).
Conclusion
2
Although there are many grading systems of the evidence quality and recommendation strength of TCM/ integrated traditional Chinese and western medicine CPGs and expert consensus, more work are still needed for their standardization to promote further application.
GUYATT GH , OXMAN AD , VIST GE , et al . GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations [J]. BMJ , 2008 , 336 ( 7650 ): 924 - 926 .
DELLINGER RP , CARLET JM , MASUR H , et al . Surviving Sepsis Campaign guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock [J]. Crit Care Med , 2004 , 32 ( 3 ): 858 - 873 .
HOWICK J , CHALMERS I , GLASZIOU P , et al . Explanation of the 2011 OCEBM Levels of Evidence . 2011 [EB/OL]. ( 2011-05-01 ) [ 2021-12-01 ]. https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/explanation-of-the-2011-ocebm-levels-of-evidence https://www.cebm.ox.ac.uk/resources/levels-of-evidence/explanation-of-the-2011-ocebm-levels-of-evidence .
ANTONIOU SA , TSOKANI S , MAVRIDIS D , et al . Guideline assessment project: filling the GAP in surgical guidelines: quality improvement initiative by an International Working Group [J]. Ann Surg , 2019 , 269 ( 4 ): 642 - 651 .
NORRIS SL , HOLMER HK , OGDEN LA , et al . Conflict of interest in clinical practice guideline development: a systematic review [J]. PLoS One , 2011 , 6 ( 10 ): e25153 .
SOX HC . Conflict of interest in practice guidelines panels [J]. JAMA , 2017 , 317 ( 17 ): 1739 - 1740 .