Strengthening the management and evaluation of clinical pathways is one of the most important strategies of "Healthy China 2030" Strategic Plan. Evidence-based assessment and clinical guidelines can provide the best relevant evidence to develop clinical pathways. We planned to analyze the current situation of clinical pathways in China and explore how to apply evidence-based assessment on clinical pathway management. We searched PubMed, EMbase, ISI, CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP and the The Cochrane Library using "critical pathways" and "clinical guidelines" as key words or subject terms. And we conducted a comparison of their published volume, definitions, differences and connections. The management system of clinical pathway in China is fundamentally flawed, it is still a challenge to implement the clinical pathways effectively without scientific methodologies and standardized evidence-based evaluation system. In order to improve the management quality of clinical pathway in China, we should develop clinical pathways based on national situation and innovate the evaluation system to standardize the clinical pathway management according to WHO recommendations of clinical guideline and appraisal.
Early and mid-stage esophageal cancer can achieve a particular effect through surgeries or comprehensive treatment based on surgery. Once the esophageal cancer progresses to the advanced stage, it is still lack of effective remedy for the disease, and the patient's prognosis is poor. Immunotherapy has developed rapidly in recent years, bringing dawn to patients with advanced esophageal cancer. On July 31, 2019, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved KEYTRUDA (Merck) for the treatment of esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, and it became the first milestone drug for esophageal squamous cell carcinoma. In the paper, we will review the progress of immunotherapy in the treatment of advanced esophageal cancer on the basis of current clinical researches, which might provide ideas for further studies in the immunotherapy for esophageal cancer.
Objective To evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus on central venous catheters. Methods The PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data, CNKI databases and Guidelines International Network, National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence, National Guideline Clearinghouse, Medive.cn websites were searched to collect clinical guidelines and consensus related to central venous catheters. The retrieval time was from the establishment of the database to October 2022. Two researchers independently screened the literature, extracted data and used evaluation tools AGREE Ⅱ and RIGHT to evaluate the quality of the included studies. Results A total of 34 central venous catheter guidelines and consensus were included. The average score for each field of AGREE II was 53.73% for scope and purpose, 39.26% for participants, 39.57% for rigor, 46.76% for clarity, 30.23% for application and 49.18% for editorial independence. Items 1a, 1b, 3, and 4 (100.00%) had the highest reporting rate in the RIGHT evaluation items, followed by items 19a (97.05%), 2/19b (94.11%), 20 (91.17%), 7b/11a (88.23%), and 7a (85.29%). The reporting rate of the remaining items was below 60%. Subgroup analysis results showed that the average score and RIGHT score of the guidance class in the four fields of AGREE Ⅱ (rigor, clarity, application and editorial independence) were higher than those of the consensus class. Guidelines and consensus formulated based on evidence-based medicine methods were higher than those formulated based on expert opinions or reviews in the three fields of AGREE II (rigor, application and editorial independence). The average scores of foreign guidelines and consensus in 6 fields and RIGHT scores of AGREE Ⅱ were higher than those of domestic guidelines and consensus. Conclusion The AGREE Ⅱ of 6 fields average score and RIGHT score in foreign guidelines are higher than those in domestic guidelines.
Objective To investigate and analyze the status of clinical guidelines of children in China, so as to regulate the development of children’s evidence-based clinical guidelines and provide recommendations for children’s clinical guidelines. Methods Names of guidelines, year and institution of publication, methodology of development and reference number were descriptively analyzed. Years of publication and diseases of guidelines were analyzed with statistical graphs. AGREE instrument was used to evaluate the evidence-based guidelines of children. Results a) Of 91 clinical guidelines of children, 62 were translations. Of 29 guidelines ourselves, nine were traditional Chinese medicine guidelines and five (17%) were evidence-based guidelines; b) Guideline on Rational Use of Antibiotics in Acute Respiratory Infections (Probation), the first guideline of children, was published in 1999. Guidelines of children was not published until 2005. Then, the number of guidelines was increasing each year and reached a peak in 2008. Of 13 guidelines in 2008, seven were traditional Chinese medicine guidelines. Guidelines on respiratory diseases were 14 ranked as the top; c) Guidelines on congenital deformity and chromosomal abnormalities, tumor, circulatory system disease, blood disease and western guideline on communicable disease were not formulated in China; and d) Average scores on six domain of five evidence-based guidelines were 84.4%, 37.5%, 74.3%, 90.0%, 22.2%, 46.6%, respectively. Guide on Diagnosis and Treatment of Children Aged 0 to 5 with Acute Fever of Unknown Etiology was bly recommended, Guide on Management of Children with Community-Acquired Pneumonia, Evidence-Based Guide on Diagnosis and Treatment of Children with Common Kidney Disease, Guide on Nutrition Support of Newborn, Guide on Diagnosis and Treatment of Children with Chronic Cough were recommended. Conclusion Clinical guidelines of children in China begin late, develop slowly and are lack of update. A standard on development of guidelines is needed. The government should increase the fund of development, implementation and promotion of guidelines. Recommendations for high-quality guidelines should be included in procedure of medical quality assurance. Compliance of guidelines should be provided by organization which formulatesd the guideline, so as to promote the application of high-quality guidelines.
ObjectivesTo systematically review the necessary factors of questionnaires design on patients' values and preferences in order to provide information on the most appropriate questionnaires when developing clinical practice guidelines.MethodsA systematic literature search of PubMed, EMbase, The Cochrane Library, CBM, CNKI and WanFang Data databases was performed to identify studies on questionnaires evaluating patient values and preferences. The authors included the articles that used fully structured questionnaires or scales with standardized questions and answer options. We assessed the questionnaires' construction with psychometric methodology and summarized the necessary factors on patients' preferences and values into the domains and items.ResultsTwenty articles were eventually included. Five out of 20 studies (25%, 5/20) described the process of item generation while merely one questionnaire (5%, 1/20) mentioned pilot testing. Regarding validity, there were 6 questionnaires (30%, 6/20) that assessed validity. For acceptability, the time taken to complete the questionnaires range from 10 to 30 minutes and only 6 studies reported response rates. The results showed that the factors affecting the design of questionnaires on patients' values and preference were related to the effectiveness, safety, prognostic factors and others. The main factors were the effects, side effects and risk of complications, risk of relapse and the cost of treatments.ConclusionsOnly a few studies have developed questionnaires with rigorous psychometric methods to measure patients' preference and values. There is still no valid or reliable questionnaires for patients' preference and values when developing clinical practice guidelines. Further study should be conducted to develop standardized instruments to measure patients' preference and values. It is suggested that the factors this study provides can be used in formulating questionnaires on patients' preference and values.
ObjectivesTo evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of clinical guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer.MethodsDatabases including PubMed, EMbase, Web of Science, CBM, WanFang Data and CNKI were electronically searched and major guideline websites such as GIN, NICE, NGC and Yimaitong were also searched to collect guidelines and consensus for esophageal cancer from inception to August 2018. Two reviewers independently screened the literatures and extracted data according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and then evaluated the quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II and RIGHT instruments.ResultsA total of 26 esophageal cancer guidelines and consensus were included. The mean scores for each domain of AGREE II was 49.63% for scope and purpose, 25.16% for stakeholder involvement, 23.42% for rigor of development, 49.25% for clarity of presentation, 16.91% for applicability, and 21.07% for editorial independence. The item with the highest reporting rate among the RIGHT evaluation items was 5 (84.62%), followed by 1a (80.77%), 1c (65.38%), 13a (65.38%), and 4 (61.54%), and the remaining items were all reported below 50%. Results of subgroup analysis showed that the guidelines and consensus developed based on the evidence-based medicine method had higher average scores in the six domains of AGREE II and the RIGHT score than the guidelines and consensus developed based on expert opinions or reviews. The foreign guidelines and consensus had higher average scores in the three domains of AGREE II (formulation rigor, clarity, editorial independence) and the RIGHT score than the domestic guidelines.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting quality of the guidelines and consensus on esophageal cancer is low, with the guidelines and consensus in China even lower, requiring further improvement. It is suggested that the guideline developers should refer to the standards such as AGREE II and RIGHT to develop high-quality guidelines and promote their application, so as to better guide the standardized diagnosis and treatment of esophageal cancer.