The Evidence Mapping and Methodological Quality of Clinical Practice Guidelines of Diagnosis and Management for Spinal Pain: A Cross-Sectional Study

Abstract Objectives: To systematically review clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for treating spinal pain, to assess the quality of different CPGs, and finally to provide an evidence map for the specific explication of research trends and gaps.Method: We searched CPGs in PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Guidelines International Network (GIN), National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) and the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). We extracted basic information, recommendations, methodological quality, and reporting quality of the CPGs. Four researchers independently evaluated the quality of the CPGs according to the Appraisal of Guidelines Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) and Reporting Items for Practice Guidelines in Healthcare (RIGHT). Results: According to the AGREE II checklist, we found that the mean score was relatively high in four domains, namely, scope and purpose (78.39), stakeholder involvement (63.04), clarity of presentation (72.04), and rigor of development (61.25). However, the mean score of two domains (editorial independence and application) was relatively low. Among the seven domains of the RIGHT checklist, one field (basic information) had the highest reporting rate (86.61%), while another field (funding, declaration, and management of interest) obtained the lowest reporting rate (53.00%). Conclusion: Our study provided evidence mapping, which is a good tool to reduce research waste and facilitate the process of knowledge transfer. The results of our study can also be used to optimize the implementation of these recommendations and to improve the development of reliable CPGs for treating spinal pain.