Using RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare) to evaluate the reporting quality of WHO guidelines

• Main Authors: Xiaoqin Wang, Qi Zhou, Yaolong Chen, Nan Yang, Kevin Pottie, Yujie Xiao, Yajing Tong, Liang Yao, Qi Wang, Kehu Yang, Susan L. Norris
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: BMC 2020-07-01
• Series: Health Research Policy and Systems
• Subjects: WHO; Practice guideline; RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare); Reporting quality
• Online Access: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12961-020-00578-w

Abstract Background Without adequate reporting of research, valuable time and resources are wasted. In the same vein, adequate reporting of practice guidelines to optimise patient care is equally important. Our study examines the quality of reporting of published WHO guidelines, over time, using the RIGHT (Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in HealThcare) reporting checklist. Methods We examined English-language guidelines approved by the WHO Guidelines Review Committee from inception of the committee in 2007 until 31 December 2017. Pairs of independent, trained reviewers assessed the reporting quality of these guidelines. Descriptive data were summarised with frequencies and percentages. Results We included 182 eligible guidelines. Overall, 25 out of the 34 RIGHT items were reported in 75% or more of the WHO guidelines. The reporting rates improved over time. Further, 90% of the guidelines reported document type in the title. The identification of evidence, the rationale for recommendations and the review process were reported in more than 80% of guidelines. The certainty of the evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system was assessed in 81% of the guidelines assessed. While 82% of guidelines reported funding sources, only 25% mentioned the role of funders. Conclusions WHO guidelines provide adequate reporting of many of the RIGHT items and reporting has improved over time. WHO guidelines compare favourably to guidelines produced by other organisations. However, reporting can be further improved in a number of areas.