Abstract
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.