Methodology and reporting quality of patient and public versions of guidelines in China: A systematic review

Abstract

AbstractIntroductionThe development of patient and public versions of guidelines (PVGs) in China is still in its early stages. The aim of this article is to systematically identify the PVGs published or released in China, analyse their development methods, and assess their reporting quality.MethodsWe searched five major literature databases and conducted supplementary searches to identify all PVGs published or released by 8 January 2023 in China. After screening the literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, we analysed the development methodology and evaluated the reporting quality of the included PVGs using the Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare‐Public or Patient Versions of Guidelines (RIGHT‐PVG). We reported this systematic review in compliance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines.ResultsA total of 3795 records were first identified, and 17 PVGs were included. Nine PVGs reported their development methodology: seven used de novo development (similar to developing clinical practice guidelines [CPGs]), and two rewrote the recommendations of an existing CPG. The reporting quality differed substantially between the PVGs. The PVGs adhered to between 8 and 16 (47.1%–94.1%) of the 17 RIGHT‐PVG items, with a median of 9. All PVGs specified the topic addressed in the PVGs, introduced the target condition, described the purpose, scope and target users and had precise recommendations. In contrast, none of the PVGs listed questions for patients to ask their healthcare providers.ConclusionsOnly few PVGs have so far been released in China. Most PVGs were developed de novo from the evidence, while some were instead rewritten from an existing CPG. In addition, we encourage PVGs developers to follow RIGHT‐PVG checklist when writing the guidelines in the future.