X H Shi, S X Wang, Z Wang, J Wang, Z H Zhang, Y P Liu, H Y Zhang, H W Gao, X Y Zhou, Q Rao, L Liang, X H Yao, D G Liu, Z Y Liang
{"title":"[2022年在医学期刊上发表的中国病理学指南和共识的科学性、透明性和适用性排名]。","authors":"X H Shi, S X Wang, Z Wang, J Wang, Z H Zhang, Y P Liu, H Y Zhang, H W Gao, X Y Zhou, Q Rao, L Liang, X H Yao, D G Liu, Z Y Liang","doi":"10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20231105-00333","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The STAR tool was used to evaluate and analyze the science, transparency, and applicability of Chinese pathology guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022. There were a total of 18 pathology guidelines and consensuses published in 2022, including 1 guideline and 17 consensuses. The results showed that the guideline score was 21.83 points, lower than the overall guideline average (43.4 points). Consensus ratings scored an average of 27.87 points, on par with the overall consensus level (28.3 points). Areas that scored above the overall level were \"conflict of interest\" and \"working groups\", while areas that scored below the overall level were \"proposals\", \"funding\", \"evidence\", \"consensus approaches\" and \"accessibility\". To sum up, the formulation of pathology guidelines and consensuses in 2022 is not standardized, and the evidence retrieval process, evidence evaluation methods and grading criteria for recommendations on clinical issues are not provided in the formulation process; the process and method for reaching consensus are not provided, the plan is lacking, and registration is not carried out. It is therefore suggested that guidelines/consensus makers in the field of pathology should attach importance to evidence-based medical evidence, strictly follow guideline formulation methods and processes, further improve the scientific, applicable and transparent guidelines/consensuses in the field, and better provide support for clinicians and patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":35997,"journal":{"name":"中华病理学杂志","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Scientific, transparent and applicable rankings of Chinese pathological guidelines and consensus published in the medical journals in 2022].\",\"authors\":\"X H Shi, S X Wang, Z Wang, J Wang, Z H Zhang, Y P Liu, H Y Zhang, H W Gao, X Y Zhou, Q Rao, L Liang, X H Yao, D G Liu, Z Y Liang\",\"doi\":\"10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20231105-00333\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>The STAR tool was used to evaluate and analyze the science, transparency, and applicability of Chinese pathology guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022. There were a total of 18 pathology guidelines and consensuses published in 2022, including 1 guideline and 17 consensuses. The results showed that the guideline score was 21.83 points, lower than the overall guideline average (43.4 points). Consensus ratings scored an average of 27.87 points, on par with the overall consensus level (28.3 points). Areas that scored above the overall level were \\\"conflict of interest\\\" and \\\"working groups\\\", while areas that scored below the overall level were \\\"proposals\\\", \\\"funding\\\", \\\"evidence\\\", \\\"consensus approaches\\\" and \\\"accessibility\\\". To sum up, the formulation of pathology guidelines and consensuses in 2022 is not standardized, and the evidence retrieval process, evidence evaluation methods and grading criteria for recommendations on clinical issues are not provided in the formulation process; the process and method for reaching consensus are not provided, the plan is lacking, and registration is not carried out. It is therefore suggested that guidelines/consensus makers in the field of pathology should attach importance to evidence-based medical evidence, strictly follow guideline formulation methods and processes, further improve the scientific, applicable and transparent guidelines/consensuses in the field, and better provide support for clinicians and patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":35997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中华病理学杂志\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中华病理学杂志\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20231105-00333\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中华病理学杂志","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3760/cma.j.cn112151-20231105-00333","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
[Scientific, transparent and applicable rankings of Chinese pathological guidelines and consensus published in the medical journals in 2022].
The STAR tool was used to evaluate and analyze the science, transparency, and applicability of Chinese pathology guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022. There were a total of 18 pathology guidelines and consensuses published in 2022, including 1 guideline and 17 consensuses. The results showed that the guideline score was 21.83 points, lower than the overall guideline average (43.4 points). Consensus ratings scored an average of 27.87 points, on par with the overall consensus level (28.3 points). Areas that scored above the overall level were "conflict of interest" and "working groups", while areas that scored below the overall level were "proposals", "funding", "evidence", "consensus approaches" and "accessibility". To sum up, the formulation of pathology guidelines and consensuses in 2022 is not standardized, and the evidence retrieval process, evidence evaluation methods and grading criteria for recommendations on clinical issues are not provided in the formulation process; the process and method for reaching consensus are not provided, the plan is lacking, and registration is not carried out. It is therefore suggested that guidelines/consensus makers in the field of pathology should attach importance to evidence-based medical evidence, strictly follow guideline formulation methods and processes, further improve the scientific, applicable and transparent guidelines/consensuses in the field, and better provide support for clinicians and patients.