Reporting Status of Clinical Practice Guideline Protocols: A Systematic Analysis

To systematically analyzed the reporting status of core elements in publicly available clinical practice guideline(hereafter referred to as "guideline") protocols published domestically and internationally over the past decade, identified existing problems, and provided evidence to inform the standardized writing and publication of future guideline protocols.

A systematic search was conducted in Chinese and English databases for clinical practice guideline protocols published during the past ten years. The basic characteristics and reporting of core elements—including registration information, conflict of interest management, evidence grading, development process and timeline planning, as well as dissemination and implementation—were extracted and analyzed. Chi-square tests were performed to explore associations between protocol characteristics and the reporting of core elements.

A total of 94 guideline protocols were included, of which 67 were in Chinese(71.28%) and 27 were in English(28.72%). Overall, 82.98% of the guideline protocols were registered, 92.55% reported management of conflicts of interest, 97.87% reported evidence searching, 88.30% reported evidence grading, and 89.36% described dissemination and implementation strategies. However, only 55.32% reported the guideline development process, and merely 23.40% reported timeline planning. Further analysis indicated that the reporting of registration, evidence searching, development process, and timeline planning was associated with year of publication. Differences were observed between domestic and international guidelines in reporting registration, conflict of interest management, development process, time planning, and dissemination and implementation. Guidelines intended for development exhibited higher reporting rates for registration, development process, and dissemination and implementation compared to those planned for updating or adaptation.

Although current guideline protocols demonstrate relatively adequate reporting of methodological elements, deficiencies remain in development process and timeline planning. Future efforts should focus on promoting the publication and standardized reporting of guideline protocols, enhancing the international recognition of registration platforms, and strengthening the development process and timeline planning to advance the scientific rigor and transparency of guideline development.