Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24312133›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2013

Clinical research of traditional chinese medicine needs to develop its own system of core outcome sets.

Li Zhang, Junhua Zhang, Jing Chen, Dongmei Xing, Wei Mu, Jiaying Wang, Hongcai Shang

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

20 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. The Use of Multiple Primary Outcomes in Randomized Controlled Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021
    Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Li ZhangCenter for Evidence-Based Medicine, Tianjin University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, 312 Anshanxi Road, Nankai District, Tianjin 300193, China.
Junhua Zhang
Jing Chen
Dongmei Xing
Wei Mu
Jiaying Wang
Hongcai Shang

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Currently, quality issues concerning clinical research of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) have come into the spotlight. It has been recognized that poorly-devised research methodology largely restricted the development of clinical research in TCM. The choice of appropriate outcome measurements is key to the success of clinical research; however, the current procedure for outcomes selection in clinical research of TCM is problematic due to the underdevelopment of clinical methodology. Under this circumstance, we propose the introduction to the concept of Core Outcome Set (COS) and discuss the feasibility of developing a COS system that caters for clinical studies in TCM, in the hope that the outcome evaluation system could be up to international standards.

Identifiers

PMID24312133
PMCPMC3838829

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.