The updating of clinical practice guidelines in China

ID: 

3071

Session: 

Poster session 3 Friday: Evidence Tools / Evidence synthesis - creation, publication and updating in the digital age

Date: 

Friday 15 September 2017 - 12:30 to 14:00

Location: 

Exhibition Halls 1 & 2

All authors in correct order:

Wang X1, Ma Y1, Yao L2, Luo X1, Wang Q1, Zhou Q3, Chen Y1, Liu C4, Chen W5, Liu G6, Wei L7, Si L7, Shi X8, Yang K1
1 Evidence-based Medicine Center, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; Key Laboratory of Evidence-based Medicine and Knowledge Translation of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China; Chinese GRADE Center, Lanzhou 730000, China;, China
2 Clinical Research and Evidence-based Medicine Institute of the People's Hospital of Gansu Province, Lanzhou 730000, China., China
3 The first hospital of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China., China
4 School of Information Science & Engineering, Lanzhou 730000, China;, China
5 Philosophy and sociology school, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;, China
6 School of law, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China;, China
7 School of Economics, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, China;, China
8 Gansu Rehabilitation Center Hospital, Lanzhou 730000, China
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Kehu Yang

Contact person:

Xiaoqin Wang
Abstract text
Background: Updating a Clinical Practice Guideline (CPG) can ensure its validity and practcality, whereas the status quo among CPGs, in most of the cases, does meet the expectation.

Objectives: To investigate the updating status, methods and procedures for CPGs in China published between 2013-2015.

Methods: We searched WanFang Data, VIP, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) using the term 'guideline' in the title, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM) using 'guideline' as the topic word from January 2013 to December 2015. Then we screened and analysed all included papers by two independent researchers.

Results: A total of 204 Chinese CPGs were included. Sixty-nine (34%) CPGs have been updated, among which the average update period was 5.3 (range 1~11) years. Seventeen (8%) guidelines had been updated more than once. Tweenty-nine (14%) CPGs indicated that guidelines will be updated, and 23 (12%) simply reported the methods: 19 (82%) will update according to new evidence, two (9%) will depend on the new evidence and feedbacks, and two (9%) will base on new evidence and clinical experience. Only one guideline indicated that it was updated every two to four years, whereas others did not mention when to update.

Conclusions: The update rate of Chinese CPGs was low, and the update period was comparatively long with great difference among different guidelines. For updating plans, only few reported their methods.