The characteristics, development methods, reporting quality, and evidence basis of diagnostic criteria in China between 1965 and 2023: A cross‐sectional study

Qi Zhou,Hongfeng He,Qinyuan Li,Janne Estill,Zhengxiu Luo,Kehu Yang,Jinling Tang,Yaolong Chen
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jebm.12624
2024-06-23
Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine
Abstract:Objective As a large and populous country, China releases a high number of diagnostic criteria. However, the published diagnostic criteria have not yet been systematically analyzed. Therefore, the aim of this study is to investigate the characteristics, development methods, reporting quality, and evidence basis of diagnostic criteria published in China. Methods We searched five databases for diagnostic criteria from their inception until July 31, 2023. All diagnostic criteria were screened through abstract and full‐text reading, and included if satisfying the prespecified criteria. Two researchers independently extracted data on the characteristics, development methods, reporting quality, and evidence basis of diagnostic criteria. Results A total of 143 diagnostic criteria were included. In terms of development methods, the proportions of diagnostic criteria that involved a systematic literature search (n = 2; 1.4%; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.4% to 5.0%), adoption of formal consensus methods (n = 4; 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.1% to 7.0%), and criteria validation (n = 9; 6.3%; 95% CI, 3.3% to 11.5%) were relatively low. Regarding reporting quality, the average compliance with the ACCORD checklist was 5.1%; none of the diagnostic criteria reported on registration, expert inclusion criteria, expert recruitment process, or consensus results. A majority (58.7%; 95% CI, 50.6% to 66.5%) of criteria did not cite any research, and only one (0.7%; 95% CI, 0.1% to 3.9%) criterion was derived from a systematic review. Moreover, only 16.1% (95% CI, 11.0% to 23.0%) of diagnostic criteria used evidence from the Chinese population. Conclusion The diagnostic criteria developed in China exhibit serious flaws, particularly in evidence retrieval, formation of expert panels, consensus methods, and validation. Additionally, only few diagnostic criteria used a systematic synthesis of the evidence or evidence from the China. There is an urgent need to enhance the methodology for developing diagnostic criteria.
medicine, general & internal
What problem does this paper attempt to address?