目的 采用AGREE Ⅱ工具评价呼吸系统疾病中医药指南的方法学质量,为呼吸系统疾病中医药指南的制订提供参考依据.方法 计算机检索PubMed、CNKI、CBM、VIP、WanFangData数据库,并补充检索中华中医药学会标准化委员会网站和全国团体标准信息平台网站,收集呼吸系统疾病中医药指南,检索时限均为建库至2022年5月1日.两名研究者分别独立采用AGREE Ⅱ工具评价纳入指南的方法学质量.结果 AGREE Ⅱ(Ap-praisal of guidelines research and evaluation Ⅱ)评价结果显示,纳入的41部呼吸系统疾病中医药指南在6个领域(范围和目的、参与人员、制订的严谨性、表达明晰性、应用性、编辑独立性)的平均领域分值依次是:69.65%、46.21%、29.88%、52.57%、3.35%、54.88%;总体质量评级B级29部(修改完善后推荐),C级12部(不推荐).结论 当前呼吸系统疾病中医药指南的方法学质量整体质量一般,建议在制订该类指南时在严谨性和应用性领域进行完善.
Methodological Quality of Traditional Chinese Medicine Guidelines for Respiratory Diseases
Objective To assess the methodological quality of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM)guidelines for respiratory diseases using Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation Ⅱ(AGREE Ⅱ)and to provide a reference for the development of such guidelines.Methods PubMed,CNKI,CBM,VIP,and Wanfang Data were searched to collect TCM guidelines for respiratory diseases,supplemented by a manual search of the website of the Standardization Committee of the China Association of Traditional Chinese Medicine as well as the National Group Standard Information Platform.The search time was from the inception of the database to May 1,2022.Two researchers independently assessed the methodolog-ical quality of the included guidelines using AGREE Ⅱ.Results AGREE Ⅱ evaluation revealed that the 41 included TCM guidelines for respiratory diseases scored an average percentage in the six domains as follows:Scope and Purpose(69.65%),Stakeholder Involvement(46.21%),Rigour of Development(29.88%),Clarity of Presentation(52.57%),Applicability(3.35%)and Editorial Independence(54.88%).The overall quality grades assigned were 29 guidelines at Grade B(recommended with modification)and 12 at Grade C(not recommended).Conclusion The methodological quali-ty of current TCM guidelines for respiratory diseases is generally moderate.It is advised that future guidelines emphasize improvement in the domains of Rigour of Development and Applicability.
Traditional Chinese Medicine GuidelinesRespiratory diseasesAGREE ⅡMethodological quality