Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a group of severe retinal degenerative diseases leading to permanent visual impairment. IRDs are the major cause of irreversible blindness in children and working age groups. Gene therapy is a new clinical treatment method and currently the only clear and effective treatment for IRDs, while, there are still risks in clinical research and application. How to standardize perioperative management and reduce the potential risks of treatment is one of the keys to ensure the safety and effectiveness of treatment. However, there is no systematic and standardized guidance on the perioperative management for IRDs gene therapy. Therefore, in order to standardize the perioperative management, the Fundus Disease Group of Ophthalmology Society of Chinese Medical Association and Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized domestic experts to put forward standardized opinions on the perioperative management of IRDs gene therapy in China after repeated discussion and combined with domestic and foreign research experience, so as to provide clinicians with reference and application in clinical research and practice.
Rapid development of recently emerging precision medicine techniques represented by gene therapy has brought hope for the treatment of rare blinding eye diseases such as inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) for which there was no effective treatment previously. Although the globally growth of clinical trials for IRDs has increased rapidly over the past decade, due to the highly genetic and clinical phenotypic heterogeneity, as well as limited data on epidemiology and natural history of the disease, along with severe loss of vision function of majority patients for which the established measurements may not be appropriate, such studies lack standard outcome measurements and endpoints to asses clinical meaningful effectiveness, posing great challenges in terms of study design and evaluation of treatment efficacy, as well as clinical practice application. At present, there is no systematic nor standardized guidance on safety measures, clinical outcomes and endpoints of visual function for clinical trial design in IRDs. Therefore, in order to standardize the validated evaluation of IRDs clinical efficacy outcome measurements and endpoints, the Fundus Disease Group of Chinese Medical Association Ophthalmology Branch and Fundus Disease Committee of Chinese Medical Doctor Association Ophthalmology Branch organized domestic experts to put forward consensus and recommendations on standardizing outcome measurements and endpoints for clinical study design in IRDs, aiming to advance the study design of IRDs natural history research and clinical trials and to effectively evaluate disease progression and intervention efficacy. Along with the development of medical science and clinical trials, relevant content will be improved and updated accordingly.
The diagnosis and management of congenital heart disease (CHD), the most common inborn defect, has been a tremendous success of modern medicine. With the development of diagnostic techniques, surgical procedures and interventional techniques, more than 90% of CHD children can survive to adulthood. Consequently, the prevalence of patients with CHD has shifted away from infancy and childhood towards adulthood. Adult CHD cardiology is now encompassing not only young or middle-aged adults but also patients aged above 60 years. Standardized guidelines can provide good theoretical support for the comprehensive management of adult CHD. Ten years after the European Society of Cardiology guidelines for the management of grown-up CHD released in 2010, the new version was officially released in August 2020. The new version of guidelines updated the classification and stratification of diseases, comprehensive intervention methods and intervention timing, and put forward some new concepts, new intervention standards and methods. For adult CHD that has not been repaired or needs to be repaired again, the indication and mode of surgical intervention and perioperative management have a great impact on the prognosis. The new version of the guidelines provides a detailed description of the surgical and intervention indications and methods for different diseases, and clarifies the management methods for high-risk groups. This article attempts to interpret this newly updated guideline from the perspective of a surgeon, sort out several key diseases introduced by the guideline, and strives to provide a concise and actionable guideline for domestic counterparts.
There is an increase in published studies relevant to the development of patient version of guidelines (PVGs). We reviewed, summarised and analysed the current developments in this field, with the aim of informing domestic scholars of the factors to consider when developing quality PVGs. We proposed three recommendations: (1) the concept of patient guidelines needs to be better defined; (2) a platform for the dissemination of PVGs should be established to support their implementation; and (3) a standardised PVGs development methodology should be developed to ensure the quality of the PVGs.
Based on previous evidence-based researches and teaching experience, our team conducted literature and book review, and summarized 4 requirements, 1) effect measure calculation and conversion, 2) registration of evidence-based research, 3) evidence-based research database and 4) quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. We developed an online platform of evidence-based medicine research helper using the front-end and back-end technology, which can be accessed using www.ebm-helper.cn. Currently, the online tool has included 46 scenarios for effect measure calculation and conversion, introduction of 7 evidence-based research registration platforms, 26 commonly used databases for evidence-based research and 29 quality evaluation tools and reporting guidelines. This online tool can help researchers to solve specific problems encountered in different stages of evidence-based medicine research. Promoting the application of this platform in evidence-based medicine will help researchers to use the tool scientifically and improve research efficiency.
Objective To analyze the methodological quality of clinical practice guideline mentioned “evidence-based” in China. Methods We selected clinical guidelines developed based on evidence issued by the Chinese Medical Association in 2010-2012, and meanwhile, we conducted additional search for guidelines on clinical major diseases. Then, we selected literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and evaluated the included guidelines according to 8 items relevant to methodological rigor which were selected from the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). If the guidelines comply with the item, we recorded 1 point, otherwise 0 point. Results a) Among twenty-two included guidelines, 13 were originated and 9 were updated once every 3 to 5 years. b) Diseases covered stroke, diabetes, chronic hepatitis B, hypertension, pediatric nutrition, etc. c) The number of guideline references were 10 to 218, of which, nine guidelines cited 24 Cochrane systematic reviews (CDSRs), accounted for 2.62% (24/916). Among them, the acute ischemic stroke guideline cited the most (7 CDSRs). d) The number of experts involved in guidelines development was 2 to 95 and guidelines pages were 4 to 150. e) The guidelines’ quality generally scored 4 to 7, most of which described the process of guidelines development. The grades of recommendation were consistent with the levels of evidence. But most of the included guidelines did not clearly described literature research methods, peer reviewer, and update procedures. Conclusion There is a growing trend that clinical guidelines are developed based on evidence in China. However, the quality of reporting and the methodological rigor of guidelines need further improvement. The citation rates of Cochrane systematic reviews in these guidelines were relatively low. We suggest that guideline recommendations should be consistent with the levels of evidence and adapt to local conditions, and relevant support policies for guideline implementation in practice. In future, attention should be paid to the aspects of guideline development methods, reporting standard, guideline accessibility, and standard training for relevant personnel.
The shortage of health workforce in rural and remote areas has been commonly concerned by every country around the word. It is one of world health issues, challenging the aspirations of achieving equity. In this regard, WHO developed the Global Policy Recommendations to improve the accessibility of the health workforce in rural and remote areas through improved retention. This article focuses on the key steps of the policy guideline developed from evidence-based medicine methodology and from angle of guideline development, mainly about background, issues, evidence retrieval and selection, quality grading of evidence, and the forming of recommendation plan, in order to further explore how to correctly understand, obtain, evaluate and apply currently available research evidence, and how to use the GRADE system to make scientific and feasible recommendations in the decision-making process, emphasizing the importance of evidence and the GRADE system in the evidence-based health decision-making.
The Universal Definition and Classification of Heart Failure consensus has proposed the universal definition, classification and staging criteria of heart failure. The prevalence of heart failure is still increasing, and the phenotype of heart failure with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF) is becoming more and more common. Neuro-endocrine antagonists are effective in treating patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF). However, there is no effective drug that can improve the clinical prognosis of patients with HFpEF. The pathophysiological mechanism of HFpEF involves metabolic-inflammatory mechanism disorders, epicardial fat tissue accumulation, and coronary microvascular dysfunction. The exploratory treatment of these mechanisms requires further research to confirm whether it is beneficial to patients with HFpEF. In addition, the improvement of ejection fraction and the recovery of cardiac function in patients with HFrEF after treatment cannot interrupt the drug treatment of heart failure.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of pancreatic cancer guidelines using evidence-based methods based on the global burden of pancreatic cancer, so as to explore its status, region distribution, characteristics of coverage themes, and difference of therapies recommended by the guidelines of various quality, and to provide references for clinical decisionmaking.
MethodsPubMed, The Cochrane Library (Issue 11, 2013), CBM, CNKI, and VIP, as well as the website of National Guidelines Clearinghouse (NGC), Guidelines International Network (GIN), and National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) were systematically searched for pancreatic cancer treatment guidelines. The Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE Ⅲ) was applied to assess methodological quality of included guidelines.
ResultsA total of 14 relevant guidelines (including five evidence-based guidelines) were included involving seven countries of four continents (Asia, Europe, North America and Oceania) and four international academic organizations. There were only two domains, namely "scope and purpose" and "clarity of presentations" which got high average scores (more than 60%) among all 14 guidelines. The mean AGREE domain scores in guidelines varied with areas, and the quality of five evidence-based guidelines was superior to that established by consensus. According to the outcomes of AGREE Ⅲ, 11 guidelines were weakly recommended, while 3 were not recommended due to poor methodological quality. The subjects of 14 guidelines covered six treatment categories, including chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy, support therapy, radiotherapy, and interventional therapy.
ConclusionThe overall methodological quality of pancreatic cancer guidelines is not high among different countries or regions. The quality of evidence-based guidelines is superior to that established by consensus. Chemotherapy, surgery, radiotherapy and support therapy were reccommended as predominant choice by these guidelines.
