Objective: To share the experience of promoting GRADE in China. Study design and setting: We designed the study and collected data on the following three aspects of the GRADE in China: the key activities related to GRADE, the main achievements of the GRADE, and potential challenges and future opportunities. Results: Three GRADE centres have been established in China since 2011. Seventeen articles of the GRADE working group have been translated and published in Chinese, and 31 articles have been written by Chinese scientists in Chinese to introduce and interpret the GRADE approach so far. More than 50 GRADE workshops and meetings have been held by GRADE centres in China, covering two-thirds of all provinces and autonomous regions of China. The percentages of societies from the Chinese Medical Association (CMA) and the Chinese Medical Doctor Association (CMDA) that used the GRADE system to develop guidelines were 30% and 18%, respectively. Conclusion: Over the past decade, China has made progress in promoting the GRADE system and Chinese GRADE centres have made a significant contribution.

Influenza is a major public health problem worldwide. Mutations and resistance development make the use of antiviral therapy challenging. Chinese patent medicines are often used to treat influenza in China and well tolerable. However, the misuse of Chinese patent medicines is common. We therefore aimed to develop an evidence-based guideline on treating influenza with Chinese patent medicines in adults to guide clinical practice. We formed a steering committee, a consensus panel, a consultants' group and an evidence synthesis team to guide the development of the guideline. We formulated the clinical questions through two rounds of survey, and finally selected five questions. We then systematically searched the related evidence and conducted meta -analyses, evidence summaries and GRADE decision tables to draft the recommendations, which the consensus panel then voted on using the Delphi method. Finally, we formulated six recommendations based on the evidence synthesis and experts' consensus. For treating mild influenza, we suggest either Lianhua Qingwen capsule, Jinhua Qinggan granule, Banlangen granule, Shufeng Jiedu capsule, or Jinfang Baidu pill, depending on the manifestations. For severe influenza, or mild influenza in patients at high risk of developing severe influenza, we suggest Lianhua Qingwen capsule in combination with antiviral medications and supportive therapy. The strength of all recommendations was weak. Traditional Chinese medicine has great potential to help in the fight against influenza worldwide, but more high-quality studies are still needed to strengthen the evidence.

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.

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) with or without meta-analyses (MAs) are widely used in resolving questions in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine, public health and surgery), and they are the cornerstone of evidence-based healthcare. However, the reliability of SRs is typically influenced by their methodological quality. AMSTAR (A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews) and AMSTAR-2 tools can assess the methodological quality of SRs, and the use of AMSTAR has been investigated. However, AMSTAR-2 is now widely used to evaluate the methodological quality of SRs, but the use of AMSTAR-2 for determining the methodological quality of SRs has not yet been investigated and assessed thoroughly. Thus, we designed the present study to investigate the use of AMSTAR-2 in studies that assessed the methodological quality of a sample of SRs with the AMSTAR-2 and provide references to potential users of AMSTAR-2 tool. Methods: Four commonly used electronic databases including PubMed, EmBase, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science will be searched following a comprehensive search strategy to identify and retrieve studies that have used AMSTAR-2 tool for evaluating the methodological quality of SRs. Two independent authors will retrieve bibliometric information and methodological data, including all author names, time of publication, and journal names, whether a specific score value was given for each item, and whether overall quality assessment was performed. Descriptive statistical analyses will be used to present the study results, e.g., frequencies and percentages, mean and standard deviation (SD) or median and interquartile range (IQR). In addition, subgroup analyses will be performed to identify the methodological differences (e.g., the reporting of study designs included in SRs) between overviews and methodological studies. The risk ratio (RR) with 95% confidence interval (95% CI) will be calculated to measure the methodological differences. Cytoscape 3.7.1 software tool will be used to construct collaboration network maps. Further, Microsoft Office Excel 2016 and Stata 12.0 will be used to manage and analyze data. Discussion: The results of this study will identify any gaps in the use of AMSTAR-2 and important bibliometric features, such as active researchers and journals, provide guidance to researchers in various healthcare areas (such as, traditional Chinese medicine and public health) for using AMSTAR-2 tool and help them in developing cooperation and submitting their manuscripts.

None