Abstract：
The STAR tool was used to evaluate and analyze the science, transparency, and applicability of Chinese pathology guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022. There were a total of 18 pathology guidelines and consensuses published in 2022, including 1 guideline and 17 consensuses. The results showed that the guideline score was 21.83 points, lower than the overall guideline average (43.4 points). Consensus ratings scored an average of 27.87 points, on par with the overall consensus level (28.3 points). Areas that scored above the overall level were \"conflict of interest\" and \"working groups\", while areas that scored below the overall level were \"proposals\", \"funding\", \"evidence\", \"consensus approaches\" and \"accessibility\". To sum up, the formulation of pathology guidelines and consensuses in 2022 is not standardized, and the evidence retrieval process, evidence evaluation methods and grading criteria for recommendations on clinical issues are not provided in the formulation process; the process and method for reaching consensus are not provided, the plan is lacking, and registration is not carried out. It is therefore suggested that guidelines/consensus makers in the field of pathology should attach importance to evidence-based medical evidence, strictly follow guideline formulation methods and processes, further improve the scientific, applicable and transparent guidelines/consensuses in the field, and better provide support for clinicians and patients.
采用科学性、透明性和适用性的评级工具（STAR）评估并分析2022年医学期刊中发表的中国病理学指南和共识的科学性、透明性和适用性。2022年评审的病理学指南及共识共计18篇，包括指南1篇，共识17篇。评价结果显示，指南得分为21.83分，低于总体指南平均水平（43.4分）；共识平均得分27.87分，与总体共识水平持平（28.3分）。得分高于总体水平的领域是“利益冲突”和“工作组”部分，得分低于总体水平的领域是“计划书”“资助”“证据”“共识方法”及“可及性”部分。综上所述，2022年病理学相关指南及共识制订欠规范，在制定过程中未提供有关临床问题推荐意见的证据检索过程、证据评价方法及分级标准，未提供达成共识的过程及方法，缺少计划书，未进行注册等。建议病理学领域指南/共识制订者重视循证医学证据，严格遵照指南制订方法与流程，进一步提升本领域指南/共识的科学性、适用性和透明性，更好地为临床工作者及患者提供支持。.
采用科学性、透明性和适用性的评级工具（STAR）评估并分析2022年医学期刊中发表的中国病理学指南和共识的科学性、透明性和适用性。2022年评审的病理学指南及共识共计18篇，包括指南1篇，共识17篇。评价结果显示，指南得分为21.83分，低于总体指南平均水平（43.4分）；共识平均得分27.87分，与总体共识水平持平（28.3分）。得分高于总体水平的领域是“利益冲突”和“工作组”部分，得分低于总体水平的领域是“计划书”“资助”“证据”“共识方法”及“可及性”部分。综上所述，2022年病理学相关指南及共识制订欠规范，在制定过程中未提供有关临床问题推荐意见的证据检索过程、证据评价方法及分级标准，未提供达成共识的过程及方法，缺少计划书，未进行注册等。建议病理学领域指南/共识制订者重视循证医学证据，严格遵照指南制订方法与流程，进一步提升本领域指南/共识的科学性、适用性和透明性，更好地为临床工作者及患者提供支持。.
摘要：
暂无翻译
