Inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) are a group of severe retinal degenerative diseases leading to permanent visual impairment. IRDs are the major cause of irreversible blindness in children and working age groups. Gene therapy is a new clinical treatment method and currently the only clear and effective treatment for IRDs, while, there are still risks in clinical research and application. How to standardize perioperative management and reduce the potential risks of treatment is one of the keys to ensure the safety and effectiveness of treatment. However, there is no systematic and standardized guidance on the perioperative management for IRDs gene therapy. Therefore, in order to standardize the perioperative management, the Fundus Disease Group of Ophthalmology Society of Chinese Medical Association and Chinese Medical Doctor Association organized domestic experts to put forward standardized opinions on the perioperative management of IRDs gene therapy in China after repeated discussion and combined with domestic and foreign research experience, so as to provide clinicians with reference and application in clinical research and practice.
Rapid development of recently emerging precision medicine techniques represented by gene therapy has brought hope for the treatment of rare blinding eye diseases such as inherited retinal diseases (IRDs) for which there was no effective treatment previously. Although the globally growth of clinical trials for IRDs has increased rapidly over the past decade, due to the highly genetic and clinical phenotypic heterogeneity, as well as limited data on epidemiology and natural history of the disease, along with severe loss of vision function of majority patients for which the established measurements may not be appropriate, such studies lack standard outcome measurements and endpoints to asses clinical meaningful effectiveness, posing great challenges in terms of study design and evaluation of treatment efficacy, as well as clinical practice application. At present, there is no systematic nor standardized guidance on safety measures, clinical outcomes and endpoints of visual function for clinical trial design in IRDs. Therefore, in order to standardize the validated evaluation of IRDs clinical efficacy outcome measurements and endpoints, the Fundus Disease Group of Chinese Medical Association Ophthalmology Branch and Fundus Disease Committee of Chinese Medical Doctor Association Ophthalmology Branch organized domestic experts to put forward consensus and recommendations on standardizing outcome measurements and endpoints for clinical study design in IRDs, aiming to advance the study design of IRDs natural history research and clinical trials and to effectively evaluate disease progression and intervention efficacy. Along with the development of medical science and clinical trials, relevant content will be improved and updated accordingly.
Objective To analyze the methodological quality of clinical practice guideline mentioned “evidence-based” in China. Methods We selected clinical guidelines developed based on evidence issued by the Chinese Medical Association in 2010-2012, and meanwhile, we conducted additional search for guidelines on clinical major diseases. Then, we selected literature according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria and evaluated the included guidelines according to 8 items relevant to methodological rigor which were selected from the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II). If the guidelines comply with the item, we recorded 1 point, otherwise 0 point. Results a) Among twenty-two included guidelines, 13 were originated and 9 were updated once every 3 to 5 years. b) Diseases covered stroke, diabetes, chronic hepatitis B, hypertension, pediatric nutrition, etc. c) The number of guideline references were 10 to 218, of which, nine guidelines cited 24 Cochrane systematic reviews (CDSRs), accounted for 2.62% (24/916). Among them, the acute ischemic stroke guideline cited the most (7 CDSRs). d) The number of experts involved in guidelines development was 2 to 95 and guidelines pages were 4 to 150. e) The guidelines’ quality generally scored 4 to 7, most of which described the process of guidelines development. The grades of recommendation were consistent with the levels of evidence. But most of the included guidelines did not clearly described literature research methods, peer reviewer, and update procedures. Conclusion There is a growing trend that clinical guidelines are developed based on evidence in China. However, the quality of reporting and the methodological rigor of guidelines need further improvement. The citation rates of Cochrane systematic reviews in these guidelines were relatively low. We suggest that guideline recommendations should be consistent with the levels of evidence and adapt to local conditions, and relevant support policies for guideline implementation in practice. In future, attention should be paid to the aspects of guideline development methods, reporting standard, guideline accessibility, and standard training for relevant personnel.
Laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy (LSG) is an effective and lasting method for treating obesity, type 2 diabetes and other obesity related metabolic diseases. The symmetrical three-port LSG has been proven to be a simple, safe, and effective surgical procedure. However, China still lacks standardized surgical operation guidelines for this method. This guideline provides a detailed description of the various steps and key details of the symmetrical three-port LSG, aiming to standardize and normalize the symmetrical three-port LSG in the bariatric and metabolic field in China, and to provide standardized surgical procedures for clinical surgeons in this field.
The focus of health equity is to enable the public to have fair access to health services and achieve satisfactory health outcomes. With research developments, guideline developers increasingly pay more attention to the fairness in the practice guidelines and have carried out exploration and practice in the relevant guidelines. The GRADE working group has begun to investigate how to use GRADE to assess health equity in practice guidelines since 2014. In 2017, the series of methodological guidelines of health equity in guideline development was officially published. It proposed 5 approaches to evaluate health equity and pointed out current methodological challenges of applying GRADE to assess health equity. This paper aims to introduce the GRADE equity guidelines, so as to provide a reference for Chinese researchers in their practice.
Objective To review and evaluate the basic contents and development of the current global clinical guidelines for lung cancer practice so as to provide useful information for domestic study. Methods Six databases including PubMed (to June 2008) and relevant websites (both in Chinese and English) were searched. Articles were screened according to the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. The number of clinical guidelines was counted and the quality of guidelines was also assessed. Results A total of 208 articles were found to be clinical guideline-related and 133 were finally included. Of those, 78 were original versions and 55 were updated versions. And 86 articles mentioned guideline development methodology. The guidelines were issued by 14 countries/regions, mainly by USA (39.85%), Canada (24.81%) and France (8.27%). The earliest one was published by USA in 1984. 125 guidelines were issued by oncological or thoracic institutions, and the other 8 were not issued by specialized institutions or not specified. The 133 articles were classified into 3 major clinical categories: synthesis (24), multi-subject (21) and single-subject (88). As for quality evaluation, the average score of all guidelines was 72.09 (full score 100). The highest average score was found in 1996 which was 83.50, and the lowest in 1997 (66.80). The guidelines issued by France had the highest average score (79.80), and Japan, with the lowest average score (48.00). The average score of 4 categories of lung cancer were 73.54 (non-smallcell lung cancer), 65.74 (lung cancer), 74.72 (small-cell lung cancer), and 76.00 (bronchogenic lung cancer), respectively. Conclusion The number of clinical guidelines showed an increasing trend. Most guidelines were issued by developed countries. The subjects included in the synthetic guidelines showed an expanding trend covering about 20 subjects from prevention to palliative care. A trend of multi-country contribution to the guidelines development and revision was noted. Researches became more focused on different types and stages. Evidence-based methodology was accepted globally in the clinical guideline development, but unfortunately very few applied the method of health technology assessment. China issued only 2 original guidelines, which were based on literature review and expert opinions, respectively. Due to the limitation of language restriction, inaccessibility of full-text articles and unavailability of authorized and specific quality evaluation protocols, the conclusions of this study should be interpreted with caution.
Based-on retrieval and reviewing information of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines from the literature, this paper introduced the key components of assessment guideline quality, including the process of development and reporting of guideline.
This article provides an interpretive review of the "2023 ACC/AHA/ACCP/HRS guideline for the diagnosis and management of atrial fibrillation", which was updated and published by the American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), the American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP), and the Heart Rhythm Society (HRS) based on the latest clinical evidence. It delves into the classification and management strategies for atrial fibrillation (AF), grounded in the most current evidence-based medical research. The guideline offers significant updates in various aspects such as the definition and staging of AF, clinical evaluation and treatment, modification of risk factors, prevention of thromboembolism, and management of specific populations. Notably, the introduction of a new staging model for AF and corresponding management strategies stands out, underscoring the importance of prevention and early intervention. This article focuses on the three pillars of integrated AF management—stroke risk assessment, modification of risk factors, and management of specific patient groups, in addition to rate and rhythm control, analyzes their substantial significance in clinical practice and guides clinicians in providing more precise treatment.