Development of the Scientific,Transparent and Applicable Rankings (STAR) tool for clinical practice guidelines

Background:This study aimed to develop a comprehensive instrument for evaluating and ranking clinical practice guidelines,named Scientific,Transparent and Applicable Rankings tool(STAR),and test its reliability,validity,and usability.Methods:This study set up a multidisciplinary working group including guideline methodologists,statisticians,journal editors,clinicians,and other experts.Scoping review,Delphi methods,and hierarchical analysis were used to develop the STAR tool.We evaluated the instrument’s intrinsic and interrater reliability,content and criterion validity,and usability.Results:STAR contained 39 items grouped into 11 domains.The mean intrinsic reliability of the domains,indicated by Cronbach’sαcoefficient,was 0.588(95%confidence interval[CI]:0.414,0.762).Interrater reliability as assessed with Cohen’s kappa coefficient was 0.774(95%CI:0.740,0.807)for methodological evaluators and 0.618(95%CI:0.587,0.648)for clinical evaluators.The overall content validity index was 0.905.Pearson’s r correlation for criterion validity was 0.885(95%CI:0.804,0.932).The mean usability score of the items was 4.6 and the median time spent to evaluate each guideline was 20 min.Conclusion:The instrument performed well in terms of reliability,validity,and efficiency,and can be used for comprehensively evaluating and ranking guidelines.

Tuberculosis screening among children and adolescents in China:insights from a mathematical model

Background Tuberculosis(TB)continues to be prevalent in China also among children and adolescents in China.We built a dynamic mathematical model for TB transmission in China,and applied it to compare the epidemic trends 2021–2030 under a range of screening interventions focusing on children and adolescents.Methods We developed a dynamic mathematical model with a flexible structure.The model can be applied either stochastically or deterministically,and can encompass arbitrary age structure and resistance levels.In the present version,we used the deterministic version excluding resistance but including age structure with six groups:0–5,6–11,12–14,15–17,18–64,and 65 years and above.We parameterized the model by literature data and fitting it to case and death estimates provided by the World Health Organization.We compared the new TB cases and TB-related deaths in each age group over the period 2021–2030 in 10 scenarios that involved intensified screening of particular age groups of children,adolescents,or young adults,or decreased or increased diagnostic accuracy of the screening.Results Screening the entire age class of 18-year-old persons would prevent 517,000 TB cases and 14,600 TB-related deaths between years 2021 and 2030,corresponding to 6.6%and 5.5%decrease from the standard of care projection,respectively.Annual screening of children aged 6–11 and,to a lesser extent,0–5 years,also reduced TB incidence and mortality,particularly among children of the respective ages but also in other age groups.In contrast,intensified screening of adolescents did not have a major impact.Screening with a simpler and less accurate method resulted in worsened outcomes,which could not be offset by more intensive screening.More accurate screening and better sensitivity to detect latent TB could prevent 2.3 million TB cases and 68,500 TB deaths in the coming 10 years.Conclusion Routine screening in schools can efficiently reduce the burden of TB in China.Screening should be intensified particularly among children in primary school age.

Analysis of COVID-19 Guideline Quality and Change of Recommendations:A Systematic Review

Background.Hundreds of coronavirus disease 2019(COVID-19)clinical practice guidelines(CPGs)and expert consensus statements have been developed and published since the outbreak of the epidemic.However,these CPGs are of widely variable quality.So,this review is aimed at systematically evaluating the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs,exploring factors that may influence their quality,and analyzing the change of recommendations in CPGs with evidence published.Methods.We searched five electronic databases and five websites from 1 January to 31 December 2020 to retrieve all COVID-19 CPGs.The assessment of the methodological and reporting qualities of CPGs was performed using the AGREE II instrument and RIGHT checklist.Recommendations and evidence used to make recommendations in the CPGs regarding some treatments for COVID-19(remdesivir,glucocorticoids,hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine,interferon,and lopinavir-ritonavir)were also systematically assessed.And the statistical inference was performed to identify factors associated with the quality of CPGs.Results.We included a total of 92 COVID-19 CPGs developed by 19 countries.Overall,the RIGHT checklist reporting rate of COVID-19 CPGs was 33.0%,and the AGREE II domain score was 30.4%.The overall methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs gradually improved during the year 2020.Factors associated with high methodological and reporting qualities included the evidence-based development process,management of conflicts of interest,and use of established rating systems to assess the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.The recommendations of only seven(7.6%)CPGs were informed by a systematic review of evidence,and these seven CPGs have relatively high methodological and reporting qualities,in which six of them fully meet the Institute of Medicine(IOM)criteria of guidelines.Besides,a rapid advice CPG developed by the World Health Organization(WHO)of the seven CPGs got the highest overall scores in methodological(72.8%)and reporting qualities(83.8%).Many CPGs covered the same clinical questions(it refers to the clinical questions on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir,glucocorticoids,hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine,interferon,and lopinavirritonavir in COVID-19 patients)and were published by different countries or organizations.Although randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews on the effectiveness of treatments of remdesivir,glucocorticoids,hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine,interferon,and lopinavir-ritonavir for patients with COVID-19 have been published,the recommendations on those treatments still varied greatly across COVID-19 CPGs published in different countries or regions,which may suggest that the CPGs do not make sufficient use of the latest evidence.Conclusions.Both the methodological and reporting qualities of COVID-19 CPGs increased over time,but there is still room for further improvement.The lack of effective use of available evidence and management of conflicts of interest were the main reasons for the low quality of the CPGs.The use of formal rating systems for the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations may help to improve the quality of CPGs in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.During the pandemic,we suggest developing a living guideline of which recommendations are supported by a systematic review for it can facilitate the timely translation of the latest research findings to clinical practice.We also suggest that CPG developers should register the guidelines in a registration platform at the beginning for it can reduce duplication development of guidelines on the same clinical question,increase the transparency of the development process,and promote cooperation among guideline developers all over the world.Since the International Practice Guideline Registry Platform has been created,developers could register guidelines prospectively and internationally on this platform.