To investigate the methodological issues related to the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations of 2019 Chinese clinical practice guidelines (hereafter referred to as "guidelines") published in journals, so as to provide reference for standardization of recommendations.

We searched and analyzed information on Chinese guidelines published in 2019, evaluated the quality of evidence, and graded the strength of recommendations. Information on grading methods, grading descriptions, phrases for the quality of evidence, and the strength of recommendation was extracted.

A total of 226 Chinese clinical practice guidelines were published in journals in 2019, of which 106 guidelines (87 Chinese guidelines, 19 English guidelines) were included in this study. There were 18 grading methods adopted, with the GRADE(Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system being the most used(35.8%, 38/106). A total of 6 grading descriptions were used; the most frequently used symbol for grading the quality of evidence was letters (39.6%, 42/106); the most frequently used symbol for grading the strength of recommendations was text (34.9%, 37/106). The most common word used in the guidelines to describe the recommended strength was "may". Among the 38 guidelines that used the GRADE system, only 15 followed the presentation recommended by the GRADE working group. There were 250 clearly graded recommendations included, with 60.4% (151/250) being strong recommendations and 44.8% (112/250) citing low or very low-quality evidence. There were 96 recommendations(38.4%, 96/250) that were supported by systematic reviews.

Chinese guidelines published in journals in 2019 that used the grading system accounts for a small proportion compared with those that did not use. And the quality of evidence and strength of recommendations used in guidelines remains incomplete, inconsistent and irregular. The GRADE system is underused. Very few guidelines present grading criteria and details in accordance with the requirements of the GRADE Working Group.We recommend the use of the GRADE system to promote the rigorous, transparent and rational development of guideline recommendations.

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.

To explore the role of the "Clinical Practice Guidelines" column and others in the Medical Joumnal of Peking Union Medical College Hospital (Med J PUMCH) in promoting diseiplinary development.

We collected papers published by the Lanzhou University Evidence-Based Medicine Center team in the "Clinical Practice Guidelines" column and others from 2018 to 2025. These publications were analyzed across multiple dimensions, including authorship and institutional affiliations, citation metrics, and research themes and content.

A total of 59 papers were included in the analysis, with authors representing 70 domestie and international research institutions. The cumulative citation count was 639, with the highest single-paper citation frequency reaching 101. The average citation per paper was 10.8, and total downloads exceeded 30 000. The content focused on key themes such as guideline terminology, development methodology, guideline evaluation, and dissemination and implementation. The evolution of research topics progressed from critiques of common misconceptions and hot topies in the field to multidimensional evaluations of thecurrent state of Chinese guidelines, culminating in the fommulation of industry standards for guidelines. These contributions have provided critical references for translating guideline theory into practice in China and have garnered widespread attention and discussion among scholars in the field.

The "Clinical Practice Guidelines" column and others in the Med J PUMCH has not only demonstrated substantial academic influence but has also played a pivotal role in advancing the discipline.

To sort, summarize, and introduce key terms related to guideline reporting, evaluation, dissemination, implementation, and updating.

We systematically searched guideline development manuals and methodological literature from database inception to October 25, 2024. Terms related to guideline reporting, updating, evaluation, and implementation were extracted, standardized, and finalized through a structured consensus process.

A total of 13 guideline manuals and 32 methodological articles were included, yielding 14 core terms with standardized definitions.

This article introduces key terms such as reporting standards, external review, and research gaps across guideline development phases to promote concept application and deepen readers' understanding of guideline development.

To promote the development of high-quality health standards in China and summarize the characteristics of global health standards management systems and development processes.

We conducted a systematic search of relevant databases and the websites of standardization institutions. A descriptive method was used to analyze the basic characteristics of the standard management systems and development processes.

The majority of the investigated countries and organizations primarily implement voluntary standards, with the exception of Chinese and the European Committee for Standardization that enforce compulsory standards. All countries and organizations have health standards at the national, group, and enterprise levels. In China and Japan, standards authorities are subordinate to the government, while in other countries or organizations, they operate as independent civil societies. The development process for health standards generally involves five stages: "Project/Proposal → Draft → Enquiry → Review → Publication". However, the specific steps in the development of health standards vary across different countries and organizations. Furthermore, China ranks high in the number of both standards and health standards issued, but the proportion of health standards is only 2.06%.

There are significant differences between China and other countries in terms of the management system and development process of health standards. To promote the management and development of high-quality health standards in China, we recommend promoting the coordination mechanism for standard development, increasing efforts to publicize standards and evaluate the implementation effect, strengthening the construction of personnel for the development of health standards, optimizing the efficiency of standard development and improving the internationalization level of health standards.