@article{LIU2022, 
author = {Hui LIU and Hui LAN and Siya ZHAO and Zijun WANG and Qianling SHI and Xiao LIU and Qi ZHOU and Jianjian WANG and Meng LYU and Yunlan LIU and Nan YANG and Yangqin XUN and Qinyuan LI and Hang PEI and Xingrong LIU and Yaolong CHEN},
title = {Investigation and Evaluation of Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines Published in Medical Journals in 2019:Research Gaps},
year = {2022},
journal = {Medical Journal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital},
volume = {13},
number = {3},
pages = {498-505},
keywords = {clinical practice guidelines, research gaps, reporting quality},
url = {https://www.sciopen.com/article/10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0029},
doi = {10.12290/xhyxzz.2022-0029},
abstract = {ObjectiveTo investigate the reporting of research gaps in Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in medical journals in 2019 and to make targeted suggestions for standardising and clearly reporting research gaps.MethodsWe systematically reviewed Chinese clinical practice guidelines published in medical journals in 2019, extracted and analyzed information relevant to research gaps.ResultsOf the 226 guidelines published in 2019, 27 guidelines (11.9%) reported a total of 78 research gaps, and the median number of reports was 2(range: 1 to 10). Of these guidelines, 11 guidelines presented research gaps in separate sections such as "problems to be solved" "priority suggestions for future research "or" suggestions for future research ", while 16 guidelines integrated research gaps into other sections, such as" summary" "discussion" or "epilogue". In terms of content, the main focuses are on efficacy (15.4%, 12/78), safety (12.8%, 10/78), new methods/solutions/technologies/products (10.3%, 8/78) and biomarkers (9.0%, 7/78). In terms of clarity, only 45 research gaps (57.7%, 45/78) were deconstructed to include 2 or more of these elements according to the PICO (P, population; I, intervention; C, comparison; O, outcomes) principles.ConclusionsThe reporting rate and the clarity of research gaps in the 2019 Chinese guidelines need to be improved, and the location of research gaps is not fixed. It is recommended that guideline developers independently report on research gaps in the guideline and aim to make it standard, comprehensive and clear, so as to provide direction for future researches.}
}