目的 评价高压氧治疗相关指南和专家共识的质量并提出优化建议。 方法 检索万方数据知识服务平台、维普中文期刊知识服务平台、中国知网、中国生物医学文献数据库和中华医学期刊网等5个中文数据库，筛选高压氧治疗相关的指南和共识，提取标题、主要责任者、疾病分类、领域类型、证据质量、推荐强度分级、发表年份、核心观点等信息，确定入选文献。检索时限为2017年1月1日至2022年12月31日。采用中国临床实践指南评价体系（AGREE-China）对入选文献进行评分，并对制订主要责任专家为高压氧和非高压氧专家的2组总分与各领域得分进行比较。 结果 总计有40篇文献纳入本研究，其中共识35篇，占比87.5%；高压氧医学专家为主要责任者9篇，全部为共识。AGREE-China评分平均分仅28.58分。高压氧医学专家为主要责任作者制订的共识，在总分及各领域得分与对照组比较差异无统计学意义（P>0.05），但总体上分数偏低，除入围排名前10位的1篇外，其余8篇总分均低于平均值。 结论 高压氧治疗相关指南和共识的质量评分总体不高，尤其是在注册、文献检索、证据质量分级、推荐意见的形成和等级、推荐方案的有效性和安全性等方面需要加强。高压氧医学工作者需要努力进行高质量的临床研究，积极主持或参与相关指南和共识的制订。 Objective To evaluate the guidelines and expert consensuses on hyperbaric oxygen therapy and provide recommendations for its optimization. Methods The guidelines and consensuses related to hyperbaric oxygen therapy were retrieved from five Chinese databases，including Wanfang Data，Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals（VIP）database，National Knowledge Infrastructure（CNKI），Chinese Biomedical Literatures database（CBM），and National Medical Journal of China，with the search period set from January 1st 2017 to December 31st 2022. Based on the extracted information，such as title，main responsible author，classification of disease，type of domain，evidence quality，recommendation rating，year of publication，and key points，to determine the inclusion of the literature. The AGREE-China was used to score the included literatures，and the total scores of the two groups with hyperbaric oxygen and non-hyperbaric oxygen experts as the main responsible authors were compared with the scores in each field. Results A total of 40 articles were included，among which 35 were consensuses，accounting for 87.5%. Nine literatures with hyperbaric oxygen medicine experts as the main responsible authors were all consensuses. The average rating of AGREE-China is only 28.58. As for the guidelines and consensuses formulated by hyperbaric oxygen medicine experts as the main responsible authors，although there was no statistical significance in the total scores and scores in various fields compared with the control group（P>0.05），the scores were generally low. Except one article ranked in the top 10，the total scores of the remaining 8 articles were lower than the average. Conclusion The quality scores of the guidelines and consensuses on hyperbaric oxygen therapy are generally not high，especially in the areas of registration，literature retrieval，grading of evidence quality，formation and grading of recommendation，effectiveness and safety of recommended programs，and other aspects. The hyperbaric oxygen medicine experts need to strive to conduct high-quality clinical studies and actively lead or participate in the development of the guidelines and consensus in this field.
Quality evaluation and optimization recommendations for guidelines and expert consensuses on hyperbaric oxygen therapy
Objective To evaluate the guidelines and expert consensuses on hyperbaric oxygen therapy and provide recommendations for its optimization. Methods The guidelines and consensuses related to hyperbaric oxygen therapy were retrieved from five Chinese databases，including Wanfang Data，Chinese Science and Technology Periodicals（VIP）database，National Knowledge Infrastructure（CNKI），Chinese Biomedical Literatures database（CBM），and National Medical Journal of China，with the search period set from January 1st 2017 to December 31st 2022. Based on the extracted information，such as title，main responsible author，classification of disease，type of domain，evidence quality，recommendation rating，year of publication，and key points，to determine the inclusion of the literature. The AGREE-China was used to score the included literatures，and the total scores of the two groups with hyperbaric oxygen and non-hyperbaric oxygen experts as the main responsible authors were compared with the scores in each field. Results A total of 40 articles were included，among which 35 were consensuses，accounting for 87.5%. Nine literatures with hyperbaric oxygen medicine experts as the main responsible authors were all consensuses. The average rating of AGREE-China is only 28.58. As for the guidelines and consensuses formulated by hyperbaric oxygen medicine experts as the main responsible authors，although there was no statistical significance in the total scores and scores in various fields compared with the control group（P>0.05），the scores were generally low. Except one article ranked in the top 10，the total scores of the remaining 8 articles were lower than the average. Conclusion The quality scores of the guidelines and consensuses on hyperbaric oxygen therapy are generally not high，especially in the areas of registration，literature retrieval，grading of evidence quality，formation and grading of recommendation，effectiveness and safety of recommended programs，and other aspects. The hyperbaric oxygen medicine experts need to strive to conduct high-quality clinical studies and actively lead or participate in the development of the guidelines and consensus in this field.
万方数据
