Objective: The purpose of this study was to systematically evaluate the methodological quality of massage-related clinical practice guidelines (CPGs)/consensus on massage using the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) instrument and to summarize the current status of recommendations in the CPGs. Methods: The Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang Data, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), China Biology Medicine disc (CBM), PubMed, Embase, and guideline websites (such as the Chinese Medical Ace Base, the China Association of Chinese Medicine, the World Health Organization, Guideline International Network, National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network) were searched from inception to October 31, 2022. In addition, the reference lists of relevant studies were reviewed to identify domestic and overseas massage CPGs/consensus. The search terms adopted a combination of subject words and free words, mainly including traditional Chinese medicine, complementary therapies, Tuina, massage, manipulation, chiropractic/osteopathic, spinal, acupressure, guideline, and consensus. Two researchers independently completed the eligible records and extracted the data. Before the formal research, calibrations were performed twice on AGREE II, and all reviewers completed the pilot test three times until they understood and reached an agreement on the assessment items. Three researchers appraised the methodological quality of the included guidelines using the AGREE II instrument and calculated the overall intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) of agreement. Results: The evaluation results showed that among the 49 eligible CPGs/consensus, 4 (8.2%) CPGs/consensus were considered "recommended", 15 (30.6%) CPGs/consensus were considered "recommended with modifications", and 30 (61.2%) CPGs/consensus were considered "not recommended", while the consensus was considered "not recommended". Generally, the scores in the six domains of the guidelines were all higher than the consensus. Evaluation results for the overall quality of 36 CPGs showed that 4 (11%) were "good quality", 15 (42%) were "sufficient quality" and 17 (47%) were "lower quality". The AGREE II quality scores of domains ranged from 0.30 to 0.75 ([ICC = 0.993, 95% CI (0.992, 0.995)]). The domain of scope and purpose (domain 1), with a median score of 0.75 (0.52~0.91), performed best in the guidelines with AGREE II, and stakeholder involvement (domain 2) [median 0.39 (0.31~0.56)] and application (domain 5) [median 0.30 (0.17~0.47] obtained lower scores. The consensus score of domain 1 was better at 26.0 (21.6~44.8), followed by rigor of development (domain 3) with a score of 18.0 (10.0~28.9). A total of 119 massage-related recommendations were extracted from 49 guidelines/consensuses, including "in favor" (102, 85.7%), "against" (9, 7.6%), and "did not make recommendations" (8, 6.7%). Conclusion: The overall quality of the included guidelines was low, and most of the guidelines were not "recommended". In future guideline updates, the existing evidence should be used, the professional composition of members of the expert group should be enriched, and patients' values and preferences should be fully considered. It is necessary to clearly propose recognizable recommendations and strengthen the rigor and standardization of guideline formulation. Thus, clear standard guidelines can be formulated to better guide clinical practice.

BACKGROUND: Despite the growing interest in assessing the quality of care for depression, there is little evidence to support measurement of the quality of primary care for depression. This study identified evidence-based quality indicators for monitoring, evaluating and improving the quality of care for depression in primary care settings. METHODS: Ovid MEDLINE and Ovid PsycINFO databases, and grey literature, including relevant organizational websites, were searched from 2000 to 2015. Two reviewers independently selected studies if (1) the study methodology combined a systematic literature search with assessment of quality indicators by an expert panel and (2) quality indicators were applicable to assessment of care for adults with depression in primary care settings. Included studies were appraised using the Appraisal of Indicators through Research and Evaluation (AIRE) instrument, which contains four domains and 20 items. A narrative synthesis was used to combine the indicators within themes. Quality indicators applicable to care for adults with depression in primary care settings were extracted using a structured form. The extracted quality indicators were categorized according to Donabedian's 'structure-process-outcome' framework. RESULTS: The search revealed 3838 studies. Four additional publications were identified through grey literature searching. Thirty-nine articles were reviewed in detail and seven met the inclusion criteria. According to the AIRE domains, all studies were clear on purpose and stakeholder involvement, while formal endorsement and usage of indicators in practice were scarcely described. A total of 53 quality indicators were identified from the included studies, many of which overlap conceptually or in content: 15 structure, 33 process and four outcome indicators. This study identified quality indicators for evaluating primary care for depression among adult patients. CONCLUSIONS: The identified set of indicators address multiple dimensions of depression care and provide an excellent starting point for further development and use in primary care settings.