ArticleAyu
How knowledgeable are investigators studying therapies of traditional medicines?
Article in Ayu. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Patient Assessment and Chronic Pain Self-Management in Ethnomedicine: Seasonal and Ecosystemic Embodiment in Ayurvedic Patient-Centered Care.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
contextResearch methodology in traditional Indian system of medicine.
aimTo determine the knowledge level of investigators conducting clinical trials in traditional medicines (TMs) including Ayurveda. MATERIALS AND
methodsThis was a questionnaire survey conducted for selected researchers trained in any specialty and working in TM. 2087 researchers were selected based on selection criteria. A validated and pretested questionnaire containing the questions regarding regulatory issues, literature search, evidence-based medicine, clinical trial design, patient selection, and study reporting were sent either through E-mail or post. The answered questionnaires were analyzed. The parameters were analyzed based on median and interquartile range (IQR).
resultsForty two responses were received through E-mail and 21 researchers responded through post. Out of 63, six researchers sent incomplete responses. Among the remaining 57 respondents; 34 (59.6%) investigators had postdoctoral degree, 43 investigators (75.4%) did not receive any structured training on research methodology, 23 (40.4%) had two decades of research experience. Thirty three (74%) of investigators who received government funding didn't have any training on research methodology. Ayurveda experts group had better knowledge compared to pharmaceutical sciences and basic science group although they had a dilemma about conducting clinical evaluation of TM within the specific framework of rigorous clinical pharmacological principles without ignoring the Ayurvedic concepts such as Dosha, Prakruti etc., Investigators below 30 years possessed higher knowledge of research methodology when analyzed based on the age. The respondents working in research organizations, government organizations, and academic institutions had lower knowledge compared to those who were in private organizations/practice.
conclusionsIt is recommend that investigators, peer reviewers, and fund managers involved in traditional medicine research need training especially in research methodology.
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.