Reporting form and content of research priorities identified in knee osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines: a methodological literature analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Clinical practice guideline (CPG) developers conduct systematic summaries of research evidence, providing them great capacity and ability to identify research priorities. We systematically analysed the reporting form and content of research priorities in CPGs related to knee osteoarthritis (KOA) to provide a valuable reference for guideline developers and clinicians. DESIGN: A methodological literature analysis was done and the characteristics of the reporting form and the content of the research priorities identified in KOA CPGs were summarised. DATA SOURCES: Six databases (PubMed, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Wanfang and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) were searched for CPGs published from 1 January 2017 to 4 December 2022. The official websites of 40 authoritative orthopaedic societies, rheumatology societies and guideline development organisations were additionally searched. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: We included all KOA CPGs published in English or Chinese from 1 January 2017 that included at least one recommendation for KOA. We excluded duplicate publications, older versions of CPGs as well as guidance documents for guideline development. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Reviewers worked in pairs and independently screened and extracted the data. Descriptive statistics were used, and absolute frequencies and proportions of related items were calculated. RESULTS: 187 research priorities reported in 41 KOA CPGs were identified. 24 CPGs reported research priorities, of which 17 (41.5%) presented overall research priorities for the entire guideline rather than for specific recommendations. 110 (58.8%) research priorities were put forward due to lack of evidence. Meanwhile, more than 70% of the research priorities reflected the P (population) and I (intervention) structural elements, with 135 (72.2%) and 146 (78.1%), respectively. More than half of the research priorities (118, 63.8%) revolved around evaluating the efficacy of interventions. Research priorities primarily focused on physical activity (32, 17.3%), physical therapy (30, 16.2%), surgical therapy (27, 14.6%) and pharmacological treatment (26, 14.1%). CONCLUSIONS: Research priorities reported in KOA CPGs mainly focused on evaluating non-pharmacological interventions. There exists considerable room for improvement for a comprehensive and standardised generation and reporting of research priorities in KOA CPGs.

Emphasis should be placed on identifying and reporting research priorities to increase research value: An empirical analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To compared the presentation of research priorities in the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) developed under the guidance of the GRADE working group or its two co-chair, and the Chinese CPGs. METHODS: This was a methodological empirical analysis. We searched PubMed, Embase, and four Chinese databases (Wanfang, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, China National Knowledge Infrastructure and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database) and retrieved nine Chinese guideline databases or Society websites as well as GRADE Pro websites. We included all eligible GRADE CPGs and a random sample of double number of Chinese CPGs, published 2018 to 2022. The reviewers independently screened and extracted the data, and we summarized and analyzed the reporting on the research priorities in the CPGs. RESULTS: Of the 135 eligible CPGs (45 GRADE CPGs and 90 Chinese CPGs), 668, 138 research priorities were identified respectively. More than 70% of the research priorities in GRADE CPGs and Chinese CPGs had population and intervention (PI) structure. 99 (14.8%) of GRADE CPG research priorities had PIC structures, compared with only 4(2.9%) in Chinese. And 28.4% (190) GRADE CPG research priorities reflected comparisons between PICO elements, approximately double those in Chinese. The types of research priorities among GRADE CPGs and Chinese CPGs were mostly focused on the efficacy of interventions, and the type of comparative effectiveness in the GRADE research priorities was double those in Chinese. CONCLUSIONS: There was still considerable room for improvement in the developing and reporting of research priorities in Chinese CPGs. Key PICO elements were inadequately presented, with more attention on intervention efficacy and insufficient consideration given to values, preferences, health equity, and feasibility. Identifying and reporting of research priorities deserves greater effort in the future.