reporting quality of chronic kidney disease practice guidelines according to the right statement: a systematic analysis

Clicks: 297
ID: 138716
2020
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Steady

Ranked #1 of 2 articles by views in lavoro e diritto

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Aim: The aim of this study was to evaluate the reporting quality of chronic kidney disease (CKD) guidelines. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, and guideline-related websites were searched from 2008 to 2019. The CKD guidelines were included. Two reviewers used the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) checklist to assess the quality of guidelines and calculate the reporting proportion of each guideline. Results: We included 13 guidelines, of which 30.8% (4/13) were developed in Europe and about two-thirds (8/13) were published on their own website. The average quality of the 13 guidelines was 68.57%. 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 65.39%, 81.73%, 63.08%, 69.23%, 53.85%, 63.46%, and 61.54%, respectively. Conclusion: CKD guidelines had moderate reporting quality in some domains, but guideline developers should increase the reporting items in basic information, guideline evidence, and recommendations. The RIGHT checklist would be a useful tool to improve the reporting quality of guidelines.
Reference Key
zhao2020therapeuticreporting Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors ;Yang Zhao;Yanyan Li;Junwei Li;Weijuan Song;Jun Zhao;Yan Xu;Yongxia Zhai;Shuaimin Xu
Journal lavoro e diritto
Year 2020
DOI
10.1177/2040622320922017
URL
Keywords

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.