How well did the consensus methods apply in the guideline development of traditional Chinese medicineļ¼šA Web-Based Survey in China

Date & Time
Monday, September 4, 2023, 12:30 PM - 2:00 PM
Location Name
Session Type
Communicating evidence including misinformation and research transparency
Liang C1, Yin G2, Cui J2, Lin Z2, Wang Y1, Liu S2, Chen Y2, Fei Y1
1Center for Evidence-Based Medicine, Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China
2Beijing University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, China

Objectives: To explore the opinions and attitudes of relevant application groups on the critical elements of the consensus methods during the guideline development process. Design: Cross-sectional survey. A structured questionnaire was distributed to stakeholders via the mobile phone application WeChat through purposeful and snowball sampling methods. Setting: China. Participants: People who have experience of leading the development of clinical practice guidelines (CPG), participating in the consensus process in a guideline working group or expert panel, or being an external reviewer/examinator of guidelines. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The questionnaire inquired about participantsā€™ demographic characteristics and key issues in the consensus process related to consensus method.
Results: A total of 2,426 people participated in the survey, whereas only 290 people met the requirements. The survey results come from 31 different provinces, of which Beijing has the most (n=107, 36.9%). Two hundred eleven (72.76%) participants had senior professional titles, and 186 (64.14%) participants had guidelines ongoing. Regarding the most serious adverse aspects affecting the consensus process, the participants generally believed that the top three most serious aspects were insufficient retrieval and evidence (30.7%), insufficient methodological training (19.83%), and overexpression of authority (11.16%).
Conclusions: Consensus methods are poorly standardized and are used inconsistently in the guideline development process. The results of this study provide consideration for different roles and better implement the consensus process in the guideline development process. Patient, public, and/or healthcare consumer involvement: Not applicable.