This study aims to evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of diagnosis and treatment guidelines for hyperuricemia as well as the expert consensuses and promote the understanding and application of the diagnosis and treatment guidelines for hyperuricemia. With "hyperuricemia" "guidelines" "consensus" "recommendations" as the key words in titles, the authors searched for the published clinical guidelines on hyperuricemia in Chinese against CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Medlive and the official website of the industry association. The retrieval time limit was until May 31, 2021. The appraisal of guidelines for research and evaluation Ⅱ(AGREEⅡ) and the reporting items for practice guidelines in health care(RIGHT) were employed to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of 14 guidelines/consensuses included. The average scores of the guidelines/consensuses were 80.85%(48.61%-98.61%) for the domain of scope and purpose, 34.52%(0-69.44%) for the domain of stakeholder involvement, 35.53%(6.25%-92.19%) for the domain of rigor of development, 55.85%(23.61%-86.11%) for the domain of clarity of presentation, 26.19%(0-76.04%) for the domain of applicability, and 21.42%(0-50.00%) for the domain of editorial independence. Nine guidelines/consensuses were of medium overall quality with grade B recommendation, and five guidelines/consensuses were of poor quality with grade C recommendation. The RIGHT classified the fourteen guidelines/consensuses into one of high reporting quality, three of medium reporting quality, and ten of low reporting quality. The results of this study indicate that the standardization and rigor of the methodological quality and the reporting quality of the clinical guidelines/consensuses for hyperuricemia in China remain to be strengthened.
Keywords: clinical guideline; expert consensus; hyperuricemia; methodological quality; reporting quality.