Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on gliomas using the RIGHT checklist

Yongjie Yang; Yanfang Ma; Jingli Lu; Shuzhang Du; Jingmin Zhang; Haiyang Meng; Zhe Chen; Qiwen Zhang; Xiaojian Zhang; Wenyin Shi; Francesco Girolamo; Santiago Cepeda; Jian Kang

doi:10.21037/atm-21-2604

Evaluation of the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines on gliomas using the RIGHT checklist

Ann Transl Med. 2021 Jun;9(12):1002. doi: 10.21037/atm-21-2604.

Authors

Yongjie Yang^{1

2}, Yanfang Ma³, Jingli Lu^{1

2}, Shuzhang Du^{1

2}, Jingmin Zhang^{1

2}, Haiyang Meng^{1

2}, Zhe Chen^{1

2}, Qiwen Zhang^{1

2}, Xiaojian Zhang^{1

2}, Wenyin Shi⁴, Francesco Girolamo⁵, Santiago Cepeda⁶, Jian Kang^{1

2}

Affiliations

¹ Department of Pharmacy, the First Affiliated Hospital of Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
² Henan Key Laboratory of Precision Clinical Pharmacy, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, China.
³ School of Chinese Medicine of Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China.
⁴ Department of Radiation Oncology, Thomas Jefferson University, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
⁵ Department of Basic Medical Sciences, Neuroscience and Sensory Organs, University of Bari School of Medicine, Bari, Italy.
⁶ Department of Neurosurgery, University Hospital Río Hortega, Valladolid, Spain.

Abstract

Background: The reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for gliomas has not yet been thoroughly assessed. The International Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) statement developed in 2016 provides a reporting framework to improve the quality of CPGs. We aimed to estimate the reporting quality of glioma guidelines using the RIGHT checklist and investigate how the reporting quality differs by selected characteristics.

Methods: We systematically searched electronic databases, guideline databases, and medical society websites to retrieve CPGs on glioma published between 2018 and 2020. We calculated the compliance of the CPGs to individual items, domains and the RIGHT checklist overall. We performed stratified analyses by publication year, country of development, reporting of funding, and impact factor (IF) of the journal.

Results: Our search revealed 20 eligible guidelines. Mean overall adherence to the RIGHT statement was 54.6%. Eight CPGs reported more than 60% of the items, and five reported less than 50%. All guidelines adhered to the items 1a, 3, 7a, 13a, while no guidelines reported the items 17 or 18b (see http://www.right-statement.org/right-statement/checklist for a description of the items). Two of the seven domains, "Basic information" and "Background", had mean reporting rates above 60%. The "Review and quality assurance" domain had the lowest mean reporting rate, 12.5%. The reporting quality of guidelines published in 2020, guidelines developed in the United States, and guidelines that reported funding tended to be above average.

Conclusions: The reporting quality of CPGs on gliomas is low and needs improvement. Particular attention should be paid on reporting the external review and quality assurance process. The use of the RIGHT criteria should be encouraged to guide the development, reporting and evaluation of CPGs.

Keywords: Gliomas; Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare checklist (RIGHT checklist); clinical practice guidelines (CPGs); reporting quality.