ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2017
Practitioners' perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine.
Article in BMC complementary and alternative 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.
- Application of patient-reported outcomes in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine registered in international clinical trials registry platform, from 2010 to 2022: a cross-sectional study.Journal of patient-reported outcomes · 2026Article
- The effect of stepwise acupuncture on cognition, insomnia, and tremors after traumatic brain injury: a case report.Journal of medical case reports · 2025Article
- Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies for cardiovascular diseases of Traditional Chinese medicine worldwide: a cross-sectional study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2025Review
- Assessing the adherence of large language models to clinical practice guidelines in Chinese medicine: a content analysis.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- AI: Bridging Ancient Wisdom and Modern Innovation in Traditional Chinese Medicine.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Mapping of Subjective Measurements in Traditional Chinese Medicine to Objective Clinical Endpoints in Western Medicine.Biologics : targets & therapy · 2024Article
- A cross-sectional study on the application of patient-reported outcome measurements in clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine in mainland China.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2023Article
- Advances in Experimental and Clinical Research of the Gouty Arthritis Treatment with Traditional Chinese Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Review
- Constitutions of Deficiency and Stasis of Traditional Chinese Medicine and Related Factors among Middle-Aged Women in Taiwan.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020Article
- Treatment satisfaction in Chinese medicine outpatient care: a comparison of patients' and doctors' views.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2019Article
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
backgroundThere are no generally accepted standards for evaluation of treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Pattern differentiation and individual treatments are recognized as the most distinguishing features of TCM. Therefore, how practitioners determine curative effects is an issue worthy of research, though little has been done in this area up to this point. This study examines perceptions of the effectiveness of TCM treatments and the means of evaluating clinical outcomes from the practitioners' perspective.
methodsQualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews.
resultsA total of nine TCM practitioners from three university-affiliated hospitals and two scientific institutions participated in the interviews in August 2013. Participants reported evaluation of periodical treatment as an important part of the process of individual treatment based on pattern differentiation. Themes included (1) ways of evaluating treatment outcomes; (2) relationships between treatment outcomes and pathological transformation; and (3) distinguishing manifestations of the healing process from true adverse reactions. These considerations helped determine the optional treatment principles for further follow-up. An additional theme emerged related to the characteristics of diagnosis and treatment in TCM.
conclusionsHealth professionals considered all of the following as important ways of evaluating TCM treatment outcomes: patients' input and subjective experience, physicians' intake and examination, laboratory tests and medical device measurements. Pathological conditions were determined based on all the above factors, and no single factor determined the effectiveness from the practitioners' perspectives. If the patients felt no significant beneficial effects, then it was necessary to judge the effectiveness from adverse effect. The follow-up measures were usually based on the previous treatment, and physicians' satisfaction with each phase of TCM treatment was a significant factor in the process of making further decisions.
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.