Quality Assessment of Expert Consensus Published in Chinese Medical Sci-Tech Journals Based on the RIGHT Checklist

This study aims to systematically evaluate the quality of expert consensus statements published in China's Chinese medical science and technology journals in 2022, to understand the current status of their standardized reporting, and to provide evidence-based references for enhancing the scientific rigor, transparency, and practicality of expert consensus in the Chinese-language medical journals. Computerized searches were conducted on the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data Knowledge Service Platform, and STAR database to identify expert consensus literatures formally published between January 1 and December 31, 2022 in the Chinese-language medical journals. The internationally recognized Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) checklist was used to evaluate each included consensus item by item. Compliance with each reporting item was analyzed, and the average reporting rate was calculated to reflect the overall level of standardization. A total of 955 expert consensus documents were included. In terms of the developing body, 721 (75.50%) were led by various societies or associations, while 234 (24.50%) were developed by individuals, expert groups, or other institutions. Regarding the publishing journals, 551 (57.70%) were published in journals of the Chinese Medical Association series, and 404 (42.30%) were published in non-Chinese Medical Association series journals. In terms of discipline, 872 (91.31%) belonged to Western medicine, and 83 (8.69%) to traditional Chinese medicine. The overall average reporting rate for all included consensuses was 26.06%, indicating a substantial need for improvement in overall reporting standardization. Among the seven core domains of the RIGHT checklist, the "Basic Information" domain had the highest average reporting rate (61.92%), suggesting that basic framework information was relatively complete. In contrast, "Review and Quality Assurance" domain had an extremely low average reporting rate (0.97%), reflecting a severe lack of post-development external review, updating mechanisms, and quality monitoring processes. Subgroup analysis results show that, the average reporting rate for the consensuses developed by societies/associations (26.26%) was slightly higher than that for those not developed by societies/associations (25.42%); the average reporting rate for consensuses published in Chinese Medical Association series journals (26.65%) was slightly higher than that for those in non-Chinese Medical Association series journals (25.58%); and the average reporting rates for Western medicine consensuses (25.99%) and that for Traditional Chinese Medicine consensuses (26.68%) were similar. Among the top 15 disciplines by the number of included consensuses, pharmacy-related consensuses had the highest average reporting rate (approximately 58.2%), followed by oncology (approximately 52.4%) and endocrinology (approximately 51.8%). In contrast, pediatrics (approximately 40.7%) and nursing (approximately 38.4%) related consensuses exhibited the relatively lower average reporting rates. Overall, current consensus documents published in Chinese medical journals remain in a "quantity over quality" phase. Developers should adhere to the RIGHT checklist to enhance the completeness and transparency of consensus development. Journals must ensure scientific rigor in consensus methodologies, transparent evidence retrieval processes, and comprehensive disclosure of conflicts of interest. Additionally, greater emphasis should be placed on post-publication dissemination and training for consensus implementation to enhance the practical impact of consensus statements.