中国全科医学 ›› 2023, Vol. 26 ›› Issue (13): 1551-1558.DOI: 10.12114/j.issn.1007-9572.2023.0044

所属专题: 全科质控专项研究

• 专题研究·中国基层临床实践指南 • 上一篇    下一篇

中国临床实践指南基层版现状分析与质量评价

王平1, 吴守媛2, 孙雅佳2, 兰慧2, 任梦娟2, 赵俊贤2, 王玲2, 苏仁凤2, 周奇1, 王子君1, 王琪3, 马力4, 侯天春5, 陈耀龙1,2,6,7,*()   

  1. 1.730000 甘肃省兰州市,兰州大学基础医学院循证医学中心
    2.730000 甘肃省兰州市,兰州大学公共卫生学院
    3.L8P3H9 加拿大汉密尔顿市,麦克马斯特大学健康科学学院卫生研究方法、证据及影响系
    4.100070 北京市,首都医科大学附属北京天坛医院全科医疗科
    5.400014 重庆市,重庆医科大学附属儿童医院
    6.730000 甘肃省兰州市,世界卫生组织指南实施与知识转化合作中心
    7.730000 甘肃省兰州市,中国医学科学院循证评价与指南研究创新单元 兰州大学基础医学院
  • 收稿日期:2023-01-15 修回日期:2023-01-18 出版日期:2023-05-05 发布日期:2023-01-20
  • 通讯作者: 陈耀龙

  • 作者贡献:王平负责资料收集、数据整理分析及论文初稿撰写;吴守媛、孙雅佳、兰慧、任梦娟、赵俊贤、王玲和苏仁凤负责文献筛选、信息提取;周奇、王子君、王琪、马力和侯天春负责论文稿件修订;陈耀龙负责论文选题、构思设计、团队组建、全程质量控制及论文审校。
  • 基金资助:
    中央高校基本科研业务费专项资金(lzujbky-2021-ey13)

Current Situation Analysis and Quality Evaluation of Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines in General Practice

WANG Ping1, WU Shouyuan2, SUN Yajia2, LAN Hui2, REN Mengjuan2, ZHAO Junxian2, WANG Ling2, SU Renfeng2, ZHOU Qi1, WANG Zijun1, WANG Qi3, MA Li4, HOU Tianchun5, CHEN Yaolong1,2,6,7,*()   

  1. 1. Evidence-based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    2. School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
    3. Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton L8P3H9, Canada
    4. Department of General Practice, Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing 100070, China
    5. Children's Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400014, China
    6. WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou 730000, China
    7. Research Unit of Evidence-based Evaluation and Guidelines, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences/School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
  • Received:2023-01-15 Revised:2023-01-18 Published:2023-05-05 Online:2023-01-20
  • Contact: CHEN Yaolong

摘要: 背景 临床实践指南基层版(简称基层指南)可提高基层医疗质量,但尚无研究系统地调查我国基层指南的现状和质量。目的 调查中国基层指南的现状和质量,并探索其影响因素。方法 检索中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据知识服务平台(Wanfang Data)、中国生物医学文献服务系统(SinoMed)和维普网(VIP),纳入已发表的中国基层指南,分析其基本特征,采用国际实践指南报告规范(RIGHT)评价其报告质量,采用中国临床指南评价体系(AGREE-China)评价其方法学质量。结果 共纳入150部基层指南,主要发表于2019—2021年,多数基层指南〔108(72.0%)〕关注疾病的诊疗,排名前三的专科为心血管病学〔40(26.7%)〕、消化病学〔31(20.7%)〕和临床药学〔27(18.0%)〕。制订机构主要为中华医学会及其分会〔123(82.0%)〕、中华医学会《中华全科医师杂志》编辑委员会〔119(79.3%)〕和中华医学会杂志社〔116(77.3%)〕。报告质量方面,RIGHT平均报告率为23.6%(11.4%~42.9%);基本信息领域(59.8%)报告率较高,证据领域(0.3%)报告率最低。方法学质量方面,AGREE-China平均得分为23.4 (12.0~40.0)分;利益冲突(63.0%)和可用性/可行性领域(53.0%)报告率较高,经济性领域(7.0%)报告率最低。结论 中国基层指南近5年数量增长较快,对基层医疗质量的提升起到重要的促进作用。未来需要加速各专科和不同疾病基层指南的制订,同时加强中国基层指南制订和报告相关方法学研究。

关键词: 临床实践指南, 现状分析, 质量评价, 报告规范, 全科医学, 初级卫生保健, 国际实践指南报告规范, 中国临床指南评价体系

Abstract:

Background

The clinical practice guidelines in general practice can improve healthcare quality in primary health care, however, no study has yet systematically investigated the current status and quality of the guidelines in China.

Objective

To investigate the current status and influencing factors of quality of the guidelines in China.

Methods

We searched China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, Chinese biomedical literature database, and CQVIP website, and included the published guidelines in China. We analyzed the basic characteristics and used RIGHT to evaluate the reporting quality and AGREE-China for methodological quality.

Results

A total of 150 guidelines were included, mainly published from 2019 to 2021. Most of the guidelines〔108 (72.0%) 〕focused on the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. The top three specialties were cardiovascular disease〔40 (26.7%) 〕, gastroenterology〔31 (20.7%) 〕, and clinical pharmacy〔27 (18.0%) 〕. The main development institutions were the Chinese Medical Association and its branches〔123 (82.0%) 〕, the editorial committee of the Chinese Journal of General Practitioners〔119 (79.3%) 〕, and the Chinese Medical Journals Publishing House〔116 (77.3%) 〕. In terms of reporting quality, the average reporting rate of RIGHT was 23.6% (11.4%-42.9%) ; the reporting rate of basic information (59.8%) was higher, and that of evidence (0.3%) was the lowest. As for methodological quality, the average AGREE-China score was 23.4 (12.0-40.0) ; the reporting rates of conflicts of interest (63.0%) and availability/feasibility (53.0%) were higher, and that of economics (7.0%) was the lowest.

Conclusion

The number of Chinese clinical practice guidelines in general practice has increased rapidly in the past five years, which has played an important role in promoting the quality of primary health care. In the future, it is necessary to further develop the guidelines in different specialties and diseases and accelerate the methodology of development and reporting of the guidelines.

Key words: Clinical practice guidelines, Status analysis, Quality evaluation, Reporting guideline, General practice, Primary health care, RIGHT, AGREE-China