The report of death cases is an important source of information for cause analysis and monitoring of trends, which can reflect the death situation and characteristics of a population in a relatively accurate manner. It helps understand the health status of the population and the level of healthcare. The special deployment of case review for in-hospital deaths is not only the high priority for health authorities in terms of quality and safety of medical care but also a practical implementation of the concept that values people and life. Currently, there is a lack of scientific and standardized evaluation for the review of death cases in various specialties, excluding maternal and neonatal cases. To standardize the quality control and management of death cases in medical institutions, the Guidelines for quality control and management of death cases in medical institutions (2023) has been developed by the Hunan Province Resuscitation Quality Control Center. The members of the working group of this guideline visited medical institutions, conducted research, reviewed relevant guidelines from domestic and international sources, and integrated clinical experience to form a preliminary consensus. This consensus was submitted to the expert group for multiple discussions, underwent several revisions, and finally, it was sent to the experts in the form of a questionnaire for feedback. The guidelines clarify the scope, data collection, and quality control requirements for death case quality control, providing a reference for the quality control and management of death cases in medical institutions.

The POSEIDON (Patient-Oriented Strategies Encompassing IndividualizeD Oocyte Number) criteria were developed to help clinicians identify and classify low-prognosis patients undergoing assisted reproductive technology (ART) and provide guidance for possible therapeutic strategies to overcome infertility. Since its introduction, the number of published studies using the POSEIDON criteria has increased steadily. However, a critical analysis of existing evidence indicates inconsistent and incomplete reporting of critical outcomes. Therefore, we developed guidelines to help researchers improve the quality of reporting in studies applying the POSEIDON criteria. We also discuss the advantages of using the POSEIDON criteria in ART clinical studies and elaborate on possible study designs and critical endpoints. Our ultimate goal is to advance the knowledge concerning the clinical use of the POSEIDON criteria to patients, clinicians, and the infertility community.

BACKGROUND: High-quality, well-reported clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and consensus statements (CSs) underpinned by systematic reviews are needed. We appraised the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs for breast cancer (BC) treatment.
METHODS: Following protocol registration (Prospero no: CRD42020164801), CPGs and CSs on BC treatment were identified, without language restrictions, through a systematic search of bibliographic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, Scopus, CDSR) and online sources (12 guideline databases and 51 professional society websites) from January 2017 to June 2020. Data were extracted in duplicate assessing overall quality using AGREE II (% of maximum score) and reporting compliance using RIGHT (% of total 35 items); reviewer agreement was 98% and 96% respectively.
RESULTS: There were 59 relevant guidance documents (43 CPGs, 16 CSs), of which 20 used systematic reviews for evidence synthesis. The median overall quality was 54.0% (IQR 35.9-74.3) and the median overall reporting compliance was 60.9% (IQR 44.5-84.4). The correlation between quality and reporting was 0.9. Compared to CSs, CPGs had better quality (55.4% vs 44.2%; p = 0.032) and reporting (67.18% vs 44.5%; p = 0.005). Compared to subjective methods of evidence analysis, guidance documents that used systematic reviews had better quality (76.3% vs 51.4%; p = 0.001) and reporting (87.1% vs 59.4%; p = 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs in BC treatment were moderately strong. Systematic reviews should be used to improve the quality and reporting of CPGs and CSs.

BACKGROUND: Evidence-based interventions are needed to treat burn wound infection (BWI). Evidence syntheses have been limited by heterogeneity of indicators used to report BWI across trials. Consistent reporting of BWI would be facilitated by an agreed minimum set of indicators. The Infection Consensus in Burns study aimed to achieve expert consensus about a core indicator set (CIS) for BWI.
METHODS: The CIS was established through development of a long list of BWI indicators identified from a systematic review and expert input. In a Delphi survey, UK expert participants rated the indicators according to use in everyday practice, importance for diagnosis and frequency of observation in patients with BWI. Indicators were included in the CIS if ≥75% of participants agreed it was important for diagnosis and used in everyday practice, and ≥50% of participants rated it as frequently observed in patients with BWI.
RESULTS: One hundred and ninety-five indicators were identified from the systematic review and reduced to 29 survey items through merging of items with the same meaning. Seventy-five UK experts participated in the Delphi survey. Following a single survey round and a consensus meeting with an expert panel, four items were included in the CIS: pyrexia, spreading erythema, change in white cell count, and presence of pathogenic microbes.
CONCLUSIONS: To facilitate evidence synthesis, a single-country systematic, expert-informed approach was taken to develop a CIS to be reported consistently across trials reporting BWI as an outcome. Future work requires verification of the CIS with international experts.

OBJECTIVE: Assessing reporting quality is important as it allows distinctions to be made between poor methodology and poor reporting practices. The Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT) Statement checklist was published in 2017 to improve the thoroughness and reporting quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). CPGs are evidence-based recommendations developed to assist clinician decision-making in the diagnosis and management of patients. The aim of this study is to assess the completeness of reporting in CPGs listed by the American College of Gastroenterology (ACG) and their frequency of reporting items listed in the RIGHT Statement.
METHODS: Using the 22 criteria (35 items) of the RIGHT Statement checklist, two researchers independently documented the adherence to each item for all eligible guidelines listed by the ACG. This study was conducted from 01/10/18 to 05/12/18. Data were recorded onto a prespecified Google data abstraction form and extracted into MS Excel for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: Out of 38 eligible guidelines, nine of the 35 RIGHT (25.7%) checklist items were met with less than 50% adherence. The mean adherence was 26.8 (SD ± 9.5); median adherence was 30 (interquartile range 21.5-33.5). The publication dates ranged from 2007 to 2017 with seven of the guidelines (18.4%) published between 2007 and 2009, 11 (29%) published between 2010 and 2013, and 20 (52.6%) published between 2014 and 2017.
CONCLUSIONS: The completeness of reporting in CPGs listed by the ACG remains inadequate in several key areas. Poor adherence to items of the RIGHT Statement checklist demonstrates that there is area for improvement in reporting quality.