Research and Reporting Methods17 January 2017
    Author, Article, and Disclosure Information

    The quality of reporting practice guidelines is often poor, and there is no widely accepted guidance or standards for such reporting in health care. The international RIGHT (Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare) Working Group was established to address this gap. The group followed an existing framework for developing guidelines for health research reporting and the EQUATOR (Enhancing the QUAlity and Transparency Of health Research) Network approach. It developed a checklist and an explanation and elaboration statement. The RIGHT checklist includes 22 items that are considered essential for good reporting of practice guidelines: basic information (items 1 to 4), background (items 5 to 9), evidence (items 10 to 12), recommendations (items 13 to 15), review and quality assurance (items 16 and 17), funding and declaration and management of interests (items 18 and 19), and other information (items 20 to 22). The RIGHT checklist can assist developers in reporting guidelines, support journal editors and peer reviewers when considering guideline reports, and help health care practitioners understand and implement a guideline.

    References

    • 1. Oxman ADSchünemann HJFretheim AImproving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst2006;4:26. [PMID: 17156458] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Grilli RMagrini NPenna AMura GLiberati APractice guidelines developed by specialty societies: the need for a critical appraisal. Lancet2000;355:103-6. [PMID: 10675167] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Shiffman RNShekelle POverhage JMSlutsky JGrimshaw JDeshpande AMStandardized reporting of clinical practice guidelines: a proposal from the Conference on Guideline Standardization. Ann Intern Med2003;139:493-8. [PMID: 13679327] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 4. Oxman ADSchünemann HJFretheim AImproving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 16. Evaluation. Health Res Policy Syst2006;4:28. [PMID: 17156460] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Wilson KCIrwin RSFile TMSchünemann HJGuyatt GHRabe KFATS/ERS Ad Hoc Committee on Integrating and Coordinating Efforts in COPD Guideline DevelopmentReporting and publishing guidelines: article 12 in Integrating and coordinating efforts in COPD guideline development. An official ATS/ERS workshop report. Proc Am Thorac Soc2012;9:293-7. [PMID: 23256173] doi:10.1513/pats.201208-065ST CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. Huwiler-Müntener KJüni PJunker CEgger MQuality of reporting of randomized trials as a measure of methodologic quality. JAMA2002;287:2801-4. [PMID: 12038917] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 7. Brouwers MCKho MEBrowman GPBurgers JSCluzeau FFeder Get alAGREE Next Steps ConsortiumAGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ2010;182:E839-42. [PMID: 20603348] doi:10.1503/cmaj.090449 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 8. Brouwers MCKerkvliet KSpithoff KAGREE Next Steps ConsortiumThe AGREE Reporting Checklist: a tool to improve reporting of clinical practice guidelines. BMJ2016;352:i1152. [PMID: 26957104] doi:10.1136/bmj.i1152 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 9. Moher DSchulz KFSimera IAltman DGGuidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS Med2010;7:e1000217. [PMID: 20169112] doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 10. EQUATOR Network. Reporting items for guidelines in health systems. 2014. Accessed at www.equator-network.org/library/reporting-guidelines-under-development on 9 July 2015. Google Scholar
    • 11. EQUATOR Network. Reporting guidelines for main study types. 2014. Accessed at www.equator-network.org/library on 9 July 2015. Google Scholar
    • 12. Chan AWTetzlaff JMAltman DGLaupacis AGøtzsche PCKrleža-Jerić Ket alSPIRIT 2013 statement: defining standard protocol items for clinical trials. Ann Intern Med2013;158:200-7. [PMID: 23295957]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-158-3-201302050-00583 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 13. Moher DLiberati ATetzlaff JAltman DGPRISMA GroupPreferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med2009;151:264-9. [PMID: 19622511] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Gagnier JJKienle GAltman DGMoher DSox HRiley DCARE GroupThe CARE guidelines: consensus-based clinical case report guideline development. J Clin Epidemiol2014;67:46-51. [PMID: 24035173] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.08.003 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Schulz KFAltman DGMoher DCONSORT GroupCONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. Ann Intern Med2010;152:726-32. [PMID: 20335313]. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-152-11-201006010-00232 LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 16. von Elm EAltman DGEgger MPocock SJGøtzsche PCVandenbroucke JPSTROBE InitiativeStrengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med2007;147:573-7. [PMID: 17938396] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Tong ASainsbury PCraig JConsolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care2007;19:349-57. [PMID: 17872937] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Bossuyt PMReitsma JBBruns DEGatsonis CAGlasziou PPIrwig LMet alStandards for Reporting of Diagnostic AccuracyTowards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: the STARD initiative. Ann Intern Med2003;138:40-4. [PMID: 12513043] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 19. Davidoff FBatalden PStevens DOgrinc GMooney SESQUIRE development groupPublication guidelines for quality improvement studies in health care: evolution of the SQUIRE project. BMJ2009;338:a3152. [PMID: 19153129] doi:10.1136/bmj.a3152 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 20. Husereau DDrummond MPetrou SCarswell CMoher DGreenberg Det alCHEERS Task ForceConsolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ2013;346:f1049. [PMID: 23529982] doi:10.1136/bmj.f1049 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Kilkenny CBrowne WJCuthill ICEmerson MAltman DGImproving bioscience research reporting: the ARRIVE guidelines for reporting animal research. J Pharmacol Pharmacother2010;1:94-9. [PMID: 21350617] doi:10.4103/0976-500X.72351 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22. RIGHT Statement. About RIGHT. 2014. Accessed at www.right-statement.org on 9 July 2015. Google Scholar
    • 23. Murphy MKBlack NALamping DLMcKee CMSanderson CFAskham Jet alConsensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technol Assess1998;2:1-88. [PMID: 9561895] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 24. Sinha IPSmyth RLWilliamson PRUsing the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Med2011;8:e1000393. [PMID: 21283604] doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. Greenland SO'Rourke KOn the bias produced by quality scores in meta-analysis, and a hierarchical view of proposed solutions. Biostatistics2001;2:463-71. [PMID: 12933636] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Jüni PWitschi ABloch REgger MThe hazards of scoring the quality of clinical trials for meta-analysis. JAMA1999;282:1054-60. [PMID: 10493204] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 27. Brouwers MCKho MEBrowman GPBurgers JSCluzeau FFeder Get alAGREE Next Steps ConsortiumThe Global Rating Scale complements the AGREE II in advancing the quality of practice guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol2012;65:526-34. [PMID: 22189163] doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.10.008 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 28. Grimmer KDizon JMMilanese SKing EBeaton KThorpe Oet alEfficient clinical evaluation of guideline quality: development and testing of a new tool. BMC Med Res Methodol2014;14:63. [PMID: 24885893] doi:10.1186/1471-2288-14-63 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 29. Schünemann HJWiercioch WEtxeandia IFalavigna MSantesso NMustafa Ret alGuidelines 2.0: systematic development of a comprehensive checklist for a successful guideline enterprise. CMAJ2014;186:E123-42. [PMID: 24344144] doi:10.1503/cmaj.131237 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 30. Glasziou PAltman DGBossuyt PBoutron IClarke MJulious Set alReducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet2014;383:267-76. [PMID: 24411647] doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62228-X CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31. Ansari SRashidian AGuidelines for guidelines: are they up to the task? A comparative assessment of clinical practice guideline development handbooks. PLoS One2012;7:e49864. [PMID: 23189167] doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0049864 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 32. Vernooij RWSanabria AJSolà IAlonso-Coello PMartínezGarcía LGuidance for updating clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of methodological handbooks. Implement Sci2014;9:3. [PMID: 24383701] doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-3 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar