Knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to clinical practice guidelines and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications among medical journal editors in China：a cross-sectional survey

Abstract Background Previous research has shown that the quality of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and expert consensus statements in China is suboptimal and uneven. However, little is known about the knowledge, attitudes, and practices(KAP)of medical journal editors related to CPGs and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications. This study was intended to Investigate the KAP of medical journal editors, to identify the existing problems, and to explore possible solutions. Methods An observational study, using a cross-sectional survey, was distributed to medical journal editors in China, during April–July 2022. The study was collected using a self-designed questionnaire about the KAP of medical journal editors related to CPGs and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications. The details about the participants as well as characteristics, knowledge, experiences, and attitudes were recorded. Descriptive statistics were used as appropriate. Results A total of 362 participants completed the survey. The majority (71.5%) had high educational attainment. The level of KAP related to the report contents of CPGs and expert consensus statements among the participants was low and limited. Of all the participants, 59.4% responded they were strongly unfamiliar with the RIGHT statement, 49.5% responded they were strongly unfamiliar with AGREE Ⅱ. There was no significant difference between different gender, age, professional title and position (all p ＞ 0.05). Similarly, there was no significant difference in the cognition of editors from different editorial departments and sponsors (all p ＞ 0.05). Medical journal editors thought that the main influencing factors of the reporting quality of CPGs and expert consensus statements were developing quality (90.6%), writing quality (85.9%), editing quality (75.4%) and reviewing quality (57.4%). Conclusions The KAP of medical journal editors related to CPGs and expert consensus statements and relevant reporting specifications in China are limited, low, and unsatisfactory, respectively at present. Factors influencing the reporting quality of CPGs and expert consensus statements were identified in the study. These findings help to develop strategies to improve the reporting quality of CPGs and expert consensus statements, and also provide evidence for the training of medical journal editors in the future.