SynthesisChinese journal of integrative medicine2017
Quality assessment of clinical practice guidelines for integrative medicine in China: A systematic review.
Synthesis in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prospective registration of guidelines and consensus statements of traditional and integrative medicine: Current status and experience from the PREPARE platform.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Technical specification for developing a clinical practice guideline for the integration of traditional Chinese medicine and Western medicine.Journal of evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- A reporting quality evaluation of the clinical practice guidelines for bladder cancer based on the RIGHT checklist.Translational andrology and urology · 2022Article
- The development of clinical guidelines in China: insights from a national survey.Health research policy and systems · 2021Article
- An evaluation of the reporting quality in clinical practice guidelines for hepatocellular carcinoma using the RIGHT checklist.Annals of translational medicine · 2021Article
- Clinical practice guidelines for COVID-19.Integrative medicine research · 2020Article
- Integrating traditional Chinese medicines into professional community pharmacy practice in China - Key stakeholder perspectives.European journal of integrative medicine · 2020Article
- Quality and Specific Concerns of Clinical Guidelines for Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine: A Critical Appraisal.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- The Development of a Competency Assessment Standard for General Practitioners in China.Frontiers in public health · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo assess the quality of integrative medicine clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) published before 2014.
methodsA systematic search of the scientific literature published before 2014 was conducted to select integrative medicine CPGs. Four major Chinese integrated databases and one guideline database were searched: the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), the China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), Wanfang Data, and the China Guideline Clearinghouse (CGC). Four reviewers independently assessed the quality of the included guidelines using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE) II Instrument. Overall consensus among the reviewers was assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC).
resultsA total of 41 guidelines published from 2003 to 2014 were included. The overall consensus among the reviewers was good [ICC: 0.928; 95% confifi dence interval (CI): 0.920 to 0.935]. The scores on the 6 AGREE domains were: 17% for scope and purpose (range: 6% to 32%), 11% for stakeholder involvement (range: 0 to 24%), 10% for rigor of development (range: 3% to 22%), 39% for clarity and presentation (range: 25% to 64%), 11% for applicability (range: 4% to 24%), and 1% for editorial independence (range: 0 to 15%).
conclusionsThe quality of integrative medicine CPGs was low, the development of integrative medicine CPGs should be guided by systematic methodology. More emphasis should be placed on multi-disciplinary guideline development groups, quality of evidence, management of funding and conflfl icts of interest, and guideline updates in the process of developing integrative medicine CPGs in China.
Indexed as
Identifiers
27909999What 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.