Quality of clinical practice guidelines in Japan remains low: A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study

Yuki Kataoka, Keisuke Anan, Shunsuke Taito, Yasushi Tsujimoto, Yasuko Kurata, Yoshitaka Wada, Masaki Maruta, Koshiro Kanaoka, Shiho Oide, Sei Takahashi, Eishu Nango

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Citations (Scopus)


Objectives: We aimed to evaluate the characteristics, quality, and related factors of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) published in recent years. Study design and setting: In this cross-sectional, meta-epidemiological study, we conducted a Google search for CPGs published by 30 Japanese medical societies that are the basis for training specialties between 2018 and 2019. We used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation II (AGREE II) tool and the Reporting Items for practice Guidelines in HealThcare (RIGHT) statement to evaluate the quality. Results: We included 53 systematic review-based CPGs. The median score was 0.54 (IQR, 0.38-0.62) for Stakeholder involvement, 0.57 (IQR, 0.51–0.66) in Rigor of development, 0.33 (IQR 0.21–0.46) in Applicability, and 0.63 (IQR 0.46–0.73) in Editorial independence. The number of guideline developers/clinical question ratio (odds ratio [OR]: 4.14, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.97, 8.70) and the adopted guideline development methods (OR: 3.69, 95% CI: 1.14, 12.0) were significantly related to the Rigor of development. Conclusion: The quality of Japanese CPGs published in recent years remains low. Our study suggests that increasing contributors and adopting the latest guideline development methods at the beginning of the project may improve the quality of the Japanese CPGs.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)22-31
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publication statusPublished - 10-2021

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Epidemiology


Dive into the research topics of 'Quality of clinical practice guidelines in Japan remains low: A cross-sectional meta-epidemiological study'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this