ArticleChinese journal of integrative medicine2010
Parallel subgroup design of a randomized controlled clinical trial-comparing the approaches of Chinese medicine and Western medicine.
Article in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Challenges in Traditional Chinese Medicine Clinical Trials: How to Balance Personalized Treatment and Standardized Research?Therapeutics and clinical risk management · 2025Review
- Making evidence-based decisions in the clinical practice of integrative medicine.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2010Article
- Therapeutic evaluation on complex interventions of integrative medicine and the potential role of data mining.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A new method for the comparison of the treatment efficacy for specific diseases or conditions between Chinese medicine and Western medicine, which serve the same medical aim but are based on substantially different theoretical systems, was identified. Abiding by the principle of parallel subgroup design of a randomized controlled trial (PSD-RCT), participants were recruited following identical inclusion and exclusion criteria and were randomly allocated into two groups to receive treatment using the respective approaches of Chinese medicine and Western medicine. The Chinese medicine group was divided into subgroups according to the theory of Chinese medicine and the Western medicine group was also divided into subgroups according to the theory of Western medicine. The treatment for each subgroup was well defined in the protocol, including major formulae and principles for individualized modifications. The primary outcome measure was ascertained to be directly related to the patients' status but independent from both theories of Chinese medicine and Western medicine, while the secondary outcomes were represented by the patient-reported outcomes and some laboratory tests commonly accepted by Chinese medicine and Western medicine. Then, taking functional dyspepsia as an example, the authors explain the framework of the PSD-RCT for efficacy comparisons between Chinese medicine and Western medicine, and recommend that the PSD-RCT can be used to compare treatment efficacy for a specific disease or condition between Chinese medicine and Western medicine, and the comparison among subgroups can provide valuable clues for further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
20872114What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.