Yujie Xiao1, Li Jiang2, Yajing Tong3, Xufei Luo4, Jianghua He5, Lian Liu5, Chao Gong5, Lixin Ke6, Liu Yang7, Qi Zhou8, Janne Estill9, Huan Shen10, Yaolong Chen11. 1. The Second Medical School of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China; Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China. 2. Reproductive Medicine Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Peking 100000, China. 3. School of Public Health of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. 4. School of Public Health of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China; Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China; Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. 5. The Second Medical School of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. 6. The first Medical School of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. 7. The Reproductive Medicine Special Hospital of the first hospital of Lanzhou University, Key Laboratory for Reproductive Medicine and Embryo, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. 8. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China; Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China; The first Medical School of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. 9. Institute of Global Health, University of Geneva, Switzerland; Institute of Mathematical Statistics and Actuarial Science, University of Bern, Switzerland. 10. Reproductive Medicine Center, Peking University People's Hospital, Peking 100000, China. Electronic address: rmivf@sina.com. 11. Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou Gansu 730000, China; Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, Gansu 730000, China. Electronic address: chenyaolong21@163.com.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In recent years, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has developed rapidly, leading to an increasing number of clinical practice guidelines in this field. However, the reporting quality of current clinical practice guidelines in ART is still unknown. Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of ART using the RIGHT checklist. METHOD: Relevant guidelines were identified by electronic search of PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wan Fang Database and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from the beginning of the database to October, 2017. We also searched the websites of the guideline development organizations, including Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as from two medical associations, including the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We used Google Scholar to find additional clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as well. Two investigators searched the database, selected guidelines independently based on the inclusion criteria, and extracted the relevant information. RESULT: Fifteen guidelines (i.e. six developed by individual institutions and 9 by associations) were included. On average, 12.7 out of 35 items in the RIGHT standard (36.3%) were reported in each guideline. Five items were not reported by any of these guidelines. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (i.e. Basic information; Background; Evidence; Recommendations; Review and quality assurance; Funding and declaration and management of interests; Other information) were 46.7%, 40.8%, 45.3%, 29.5%, 53.3%, 10.0%, 26.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: At present, the reporting quality of guidelines for ART is poor, especially regarding the funding. In the future guideline development, more consideration should be given to reporting, dissemination and implementation.
INTRODUCTION: In recent years, assisted reproductive technology (ART) has developed rapidly, leading to an increasing number of clinical practice guidelines in this field. However, the reporting quality of current clinical practice guidelines in ART is still unknown. Objective To evaluate the reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines in the field of ART using the RIGHT checklist. METHOD: Relevant guidelines were identified by electronic search of PubMed, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), Wan Fang Database and Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) from the beginning of the database to October, 2017. We also searched the websites of the guideline development organizations, including Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Guideline Clearinghouse (NGC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), as well as from two medical associations, including the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) and the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). We used Google Scholar to find additional clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) as well. Two investigators searched the database, selected guidelines independently based on the inclusion criteria, and extracted the relevant information. RESULT: Fifteen guidelines (i.e. six developed by individual institutions and 9 by associations) were included. On average, 12.7 out of 35 items in the RIGHT standard (36.3%) were reported in each guideline. Five items were not reported by any of these guidelines. The reporting proportion of the seven domains (i.e. Basic information; Background; Evidence; Recommendations; Review and quality assurance; Funding and declaration and management of interests; Other information) were 46.7%, 40.8%, 45.3%, 29.5%, 53.3%, 10.0%, 26.7%, respectively. CONCLUSION: At present, the reporting quality of guidelines for ART is poor, especially regarding the funding. In the future guideline development, more consideration should be given to reporting, dissemination and implementation.