Primary care (PC) is a unique clinical specialty and research discipline with its own perspectives and methods. Research in this field uses varied research methods and study designs to investigate myriad topics. The diversity of PC presents challenges for reporting, and despite the proliferation of reporting guidelines, none focuses specifically on the needs of PC. The Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Checklist guides reporting of PC research to include the information needed by the diverse PC community, including practitioners, patients, and communities. CRISP complements current guidelines to enhance the reporting, dissemination, and application of PC research findings and results. Prior CRISP studies documented opportunities to improve research reporting in this field. Our surveys of the international, interdisciplinary, and interprofessional PC community identified essential items to include in PC research reports. A 2-round Delphi study identified a consensus list of items considered necessary. The CRISP Checklist contains 24 items that describe the research team, patients, study participants, health conditions, clinical encounters, care teams, interventions, study measures, settings of care, and implementation of findings/results in PC. Not every item applies to every study design or topic. The CRISP guidelines inform the design and reporting of (1) studies done by PC researchers, (2) studies done by other investigators in PC populations and settings, and (3) studies intended for application in PC practice. Improved reporting of the context of the clinical services and the process of research is critical to interpreting study findings/results and applying them to diverse populations and varied settings in PC.
In 2023, the Consensus Reporting Items for Studies in Primary Care (CRISP) Working Group introduced a consensus checklist aimed at enhancing the quality, practicality, and dissemination of research reports in general practice and primary care. The editorial team of the Chinese General Practice Journal translated the CRISP checklist into Chinese and conducted a review of the current status of primary care research in China. The review identifies major problems in the field, including six common problems: "author-centered orientation" "overemphasis on authority" "uncritically adopting international experience" "lack of rigor in reporting methodologies" "inclusion of excessive and redundant information" and "lack of transparency". Finally, the editorial team encourages authors, editors, and reviewers in China to adopt the CRISP checklist to improve the quality of primary care research reports. Additionally, the review provides specific recommendations for applying the CRISP Checklist in various subfields, such as discipline development research, clinical research, health services research, health policy research, medical education research, and community epidemiological research.
There were many problems in the methodological theory of the formulation of clinical practice guidelines in in the real world situation, and the lack of consideration of the actual situation leads to the decline of the guidance for the formulation of guidelines. Through an in-depth analysis of the various difficulties related to theory and practice in the formulation of the guidelines, including the deviation between methodological theory and practice in the formulation of guidelinesn, lack of empirical studies of large samples related to guideline development, after the empirical application of methodological theory, the reports of limitations and future research recommendations were insufficient and not standardized. To improve the guidance of future guidelines, our team put forward a number of methodology recommendations, including advocating for empirical research that validates methodological theories, develop large sample empirical research and comparative research, standardize the content and form of reports on limitations and future research recommendations after empirical research, in order to provide reference for guidelines develop methodology researchers and guideline development groups.
Ethnic medicine holds numerous advantages in the treatment of premature ventricular complexes (PVCs). However, there is a concerning trend of abuse of ethnic medicine, particularly in the absence of tailored clinical drug recommendations specifically designed for this purpose. Consequently, it is of crucial importance to standardize the diagnosis and treatment of PVCs within the context of ethnic medicine.
To establish the clinical problems and outcome indicators of the Expert Consensus on Clinical Application of Ethnic Medicine in the Treatment of Palpitation (Arrhythmia-Premature Ventricular Complexes) .
The inquiring experts were members of the consensus expert group, encompassing experts in the fields of cardiology, evidence-based medicine, and pharmacology. Specifically, within cardiology, they comprised multi-ethnic medical experts in traditional Chinese medicine, Tibetan medicine, Mongolian medicine, Uyghur medicine, Dai medicine, Korean medicine, and Zhuang medicine. Drawing from the available literature and expert interview reports, the research team conducted a comprehensive search of relevant literature on the treatment of PVCs using various ethnic medical practices. In April 2023, a series of one-on-one online interviews were conducted with 14 multi-ethnic medical experts. Following the integration of the interview results and expert experiences, the consensus steering committee and working group jointly drafted the initial proposals for clinical questions and outcome indicators, subsequently designing a survey questionnaire. Between May and July 2023, two rounds of questionnaire surveys were conducted, rigorously evaluating the positivity, concentration, coordination, and reliability of the questionnaire responses.
The expert panel was characterized by its multidisciplinary collaboration, authority, and geographical representation. The two rounds of the Delphi method yielded a positive coefficient of 99.1%. For the five background questions, the mean score was greater than 4, with the full scale exceeding 40%. For the ten prospective questions, the mean score was greater than 3.9, with the full scale surpassing 35%. Additionally, the nine outcome indicators achieved a mean score greater than 7, with the full scale exceeding 30%. The mean coefficient of variation for these metrics was 14.9%, 16.3%, and 17.6%. The Kendall harmony coefficients for clinical questions and outcome indicators were 0.267 and 0.316. The chi-square test showed a P-value of less than 0.05. The Cronbach's α coefficients were 0.913 and 0.905, both exceeding 0.7, suggesting high reliability. Overall, the quality control results were satisfactory, indicating a high degree of credibility in the questionnaire design.
Utilizing the Delphi method, we have identified the clinical problems and outcome indicators that need to be addressed in the development of the Expert Consensus on Clinical Application of Ethnic Medicine in the Treatment of Palpitation (Arrhythmia-Premature Ventricular Complexes), laying a solid foundation for the subsequent formulation of the consensus.
