| 摘要: |
| 目的：评价儿童抽动障碍疾病指南和专家共识的报告质量。 方法:计算机检索国际指南协作网(GIN)和循证医学临床实践(NGC)指南数据库、the Cochrane Library、Medline、EMBase、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、维普、万方等数据库,收集儿童抽动障碍疾病指南和专家共识,检索时限为 2010 年 1 月至 2023 年 1 月。 由 2 位研究者独立筛选文献、提取基本资料后,采用RIGHT 量表进行质量评价。 结果:共纳入儿童抽动障碍疾病指南和专家共识 6 篇。 RIGHT 量表评价条目中报告率最高的条目为 1a、1b、1c、4、6、7a、7b(均为 100%),报告率最低的条目为 14a、14b、18b(均为 0),19 个条目的报告率>50%。 单篇指南得分依次为美国指南 27. 5 分、中国共识 26. 5 分、中医指南 23. 5 分、加拿大指南 23. 0 分、日本指南 20. 0 分、欧洲指南 20. 0 分。 7 个领
域中,领域 1(基本信息)报告率最高(83%),领域 5(评审和质量保证领域)最低(33%),其余领域为 42% ~ 74%。 结论:儿童抽动障碍疾病指南和专家共识的报告质量需进一步提高,建议指南制订者参照 RIGHT 标准,制订高质量指南,为临床实践提供规范明确的指导。 |
| 关键词: 抽动障碍 临床指南 专家共识 质量评价 RIGHT 量表 |
| DOI：10. 13407/ j. cnki. jpp. 1672-108X. 2023. 08. 001 |
|
| 基金项目:四川省科技计划项目(重点研发项目),编号 2020YFS0035。 |
|
| Quality Evaluation of Guidelines and Expert Consensus on Tic Disorders in Children |
| Yang Yaya1,2, Huang Hong1,2, Yang Chunsong1,2 |
| (1.Evidence-Based Pharmacy Center, West China Second University Hospital,Chengdu 610041, China; 2. Sichuan University, Key Laboratory of Obstetric & Gynecologic and Pediatric Disease and Birth Defects of Ministry of Education, Chengdu 610041, China) |
| Abstract: |
| Objective: To evaluate the reporting quality of pediatric tic disorders guidelines and expert consensus. Methods: TheGuidelines International Network (GIN) and National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) guidelines database, the Cochrane Library,Medline, EMBase, CBM, CNKI, VIP, Wanfang database and other literature databases were retrieved to collect the guidelines and expert consensus on tic disorders in children from Jan. 2010 to Jan. 2023. Two researchers independently screened the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted the basic data, and RIGHT evaluation scale was used to evaluate the quality.Results: A total of 6 disease guidelines and expert consensus for children with tic disorders were included. Among the items of RIGHTevaluation, the items with the highest reporting rates were respectively 1a, 1b, 1c, 4, 6, 7a and 7b (100%), the items with the lowestreporting rates were respectively 14a, 14b and 18b (0), and the reporting rates of 19 items were >50%. The highest score of individual guidelines and expert consensus was 27. 5 in the American guidelines, followed by 26. 5 in the Chinese consensus, 23. 5 in the traditional Chinese medicine guidelines, 23. 0 in the Canadian guidelines, 20. 0 in the Japanese guidelines and 20. 0 in the European guidelines. Reporting rates in the 7 areas were highest at 83% in area 1 ( basic information), lowest at 33% in area 5 ( review and quality assurance), and from 42% and 74% in the remaining areas. Conclusion: The reporting quality of the guidelines and expert consensus for children with tic disorders needs to be further improved. It is suggested that the guidelines makers should refer to the RIGHT standard and formulate high-quality guidelines to provide standardized and clear guidance for clinical practice. |
| Key words: tic disorders clinical guidelines expert consensus quality evaluation RIGHT scale |
