目的 评价康复临床实践指南的报告质量。方法 检索PubMed、EMBASE、CNKI、中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM)和万方等数据库以及指南相关网站的康复临床实践指南,检索时限均为2017年1月1日至2020年1月11日。由2名研究人员独立筛选文献并交叉核对,基于RIGHT清单对康复领域指南进行报告质量研究。结果 最终纳入16篇指南,平均报告率为(44.8±27.9)%。其中指南在领域一基本信息方面(57.3%)报告率最高,领域三证据(31.3%)和领域七其他方面(31.3%)报告率最低。国内发表的指南平均报告率低于国外(OR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.56~1.16),初始版的指南平均报告率低于更新版(OR = 0.79, 95%CI 0.54~1.16),由学会/协会制订的指南平均报告率高于非学会/协会制订的指南(OR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.82~1.61),但均无显著性差异。结论 国内外康复临床实践指南的报告质量整体有待提高。建议未来康复指南制订者严格按照RIGHT标准规范化撰写指南内容,充分报告指南关键信息和内容,提升康复指南报告的有效性。

Objective To evaluate the quality of reporting of clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation.Methods A comprehensive retrieve was performed in electronic databases of PubMed, EMBASE, CNKI, China Biology Medicine disc, Wanfang data, etc., from January 1, 2017 to January 11, 2020. Supplementary searches had been done on relevant websites. Two researchers reviewed literatures and assessed the reporting quality independently by using Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT), and any disagreements needed to be discussed in a consensus meeting.Results A total of 16 guidelines were included, with an average reporting rate of (44.8±27.9)%. Among the seven domains of RIGHT, basic information was reported the highest (57.3%), and evidence (31.3%) and other information (31.3%) was the lowest. The reporting rate was less as the guidelines published in China than in foreign contries (OR = 0.80, 95%CI 0.56-1.16), in original version than in update version (OR = 0.79, 95%CI 0.54-1.16); and higher as developed by various societies or associations than developed by non-societies or associations (OR = 1.15, 95%CI 0.82-1.61), however, no statistically significant difference was found in above comparisons.Conclusion Current clinical practice guidelines of rehabilitation reported with low quality. It is proposed that future guideline developers should report guidelines after RIGHT statements, including key information and content, in order to improve the quality of reporting guidelines.