The reporting checklist for public versions of guidelines: RIGHT-PVG

Abstract

Background Public or patient versions of guidelines (PVGs) are derivative documents that “translate” recommendations and their rationale from clinical guidelines for health professionals into a more easily understandable and usable format for patients and the public. PVGs from different groups and organizations vary considerably in terms of quality of their reporting. In order to address this issue, we aimed to develop a reporting checklist for developers of PVGs and other potential users. Methods First, we collected a list of potential items through reviewing a sample of PVGs, existing guidance for developing and reporting PVGs or other similar evidence-based patient tools, as well as qualitative studies on original studies of patients’ needs about the content and/or reporting of information in PVGs or similar evidence-based patient tools. Second, we conducted a two-round Delphi consultation to determine the level of consensus on the items to be included in the final reporting checklist. Third, we invited two external reviewers to provide comments on the checklist. Results We generated the initial list of 45 reporting items based on a review of a sample of 30 PVGs, four PVG guidance documents, and 46 relevant studies. After the two-round Delphi consultation, we formed a checklist of 17 items grouped under 12 topics for reporting PVGs. Conclusion The RIGHT-PVG reporting checklist provides an international consensus on the important criteria for reporting PVGs.

Developing the RIGHT extension statement for practice guideline protocols: the RIGHT-P statement protocol

“…Since the publication of the RIGHT statement in 2017, 6 guideline developers have increasingly emphasized reporting on the guidelines and their different procedures, types, fields, and sections. Researchers have developed extensions for patient version guideline (RIGHT-PVG), 18 Traditional Chinese Medicine (RIGHT-TCM). 19 Extensions for acupuncture (RIGHT-Acu) 20 and guideline adaptation (RIGHT-Ad@pt) 21 are currently in development.…”

Developing the RIGHT-COI&F extension for the reporting conflicts of interest and funding in practice guidelines: study protocol

“…Whether a guideline is reported in a standardized manner or not is one of the key factors that determine whether it can be promoted efficiently and implemented smoothly (44). Since the publication of the RIGHT statement in 2017, guideline developers have increasingly used it to increase the transparency and clarity of their guidelines (36)(37)(38)(39).…”

“…We will refer to and adapt the toolkit for developing a reporting guideline recommend by the Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research (EQUATOR) network (40) (https://www.equator-network. org/) and to the methods used in the RIGHT statement and extensions to develop our RIGHT-COI&F (36)(37)(38)(39). We plan to complete the project in approximately 2 years (i.e., by July 2023) in the following six stages: (I) identify the need for the extension; (II) register the project and establish working groups; (III) collect the initial items; (IV) reach consensus on the items to be included; (V) revision and formulation of the final checklist; and (VI) dissemination and implementation.…”

“…To improve the completeness and quality of guideline reporting, the Reporting Items of Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Working Group developed the reporting standard for healthcare practice guidelines in 2017 (35). To date, investigators have developed or are developing multiple extensions to the RIGHT statement, such as for guideline adaptations (36), patients/public version of guidelines (37), traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines (38), and acupuncture guidelines (39). Such reporting checklists and extensions enable guideline developers to better report their guidelines and guideline users to access the key information easily and quickly.…”

Effectiveness and Safety of Probiotics for Patients with Constipation-Predominant Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 10 Randomized Controlled Trials

“…It was mainly manifested in the incomplete information of random sequence generation and allocation concealment and the unclear design and implementation process of the blinding method, which may have affected the authenticity of the reported results. Therefore, it is recommended that future clinical trials follow the RCT design principles and implementation guidelines and use Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) as the RCT reporting standard to improve the study quality [61,62]. Moreover, the Cochrane quality assessment tool should be used by the investigator to self-examine and improve the study design and hypothesis to improve the scientific quality and reliability of the RCT [62].…”