ReviewFrontiers of medicine2011
Analysis on the distinguishing features of traditional Chinese therapeutics and related statistical issues.
Review in Frontiers of medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Therapeutic Potential of Qilianxiaopi Formula: Targeting ADAM17-Mediated Chronic Inflammation in Atrophic Gastritis.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Relationship Between Conventional Medicine Chapters in ICD-10 and Kampo Pattern Diagnosis: A Cross-Sectional Study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2021Article
- Altered Default Mode Network and Salience Network Functional Connectivity in Patients with Generalized Anxiety Disorders: An ICA-Based Resting-State fMRI Study.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Article
- Investigation into the influence of physician for treatment based on syndrome differentiation.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2013Article
- An effective solution to discover synergistic drugs for anti-cerebral ischemia from traditional Chinese medicinal formulae.PloS one · 2013Article
- Reliability and External Validity of AMSTAR in Assessing Quality of TCM Systematic Reviews.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is one of the rarely existing ancient traditional medicines that hold systematic theories as well as preventative and therapeutic methods for diseases in practice. From the 1950s, such research methods as mathematics, statistics, and data mining (DM) have been gradually introduced to TCM studies, making it more scientific. Meanwhile, the distinct features of TCM theories and diagnostic-model have constantly challenged the methodology of statistics. This paper introduces the following scientific features of traditional Chinese therapeutics: 1) its goal is to balance the functions and conditions of human body; 2) it emphasizes on holism and individualization; 3) it stresses the longitudinal regulation and evaluation mode, which is a circle of syndrome diagnosis, treatment and evaluation; 4) the interventions of TCM are abundant, compound and natural; and 5) humanistic thought is everywhere. Some statistical problems are raised based on these features. First, complex statistical methods that can analyze subjective indexes and latent variables, multidimensional and multistage data, non-equilibrium designed studies, and longitudinal data are required. Second, comprehensive evaluation on multiple-target mechanism has been brought in by combination treatment. Third, there is a need to analyze how humanity and related cultural factors may influence the effect of interventions. Thus, promoting implemented studies of statistics as well as carrying out the TCM scientific propositions have become the common expectations of both TCM and modern medicine.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.