Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28877689›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2017

A national survey of Chinese medicine doctors and clinical practice guidelines in China.

Mengyu Liu, Chi Zhang, Qinglin Zha, Wei Yang, Ya Yuwen, Linda Zhong, Zhaoxiang Bian, Xuejie Han, Aiping Lu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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 16 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Clinical practice guidelines in China.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018
    Article
  16. Article
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

9 authors.

Mengyu LiuInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Nanxiaojie, Beijing, 100700, China.
Chi ZhangInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Nanxiaojie, Beijing, 100700, China.
Qinglin ZhaSchool of Computer, Jiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Nanchang, 330004, China.
Wei YangInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Nanxiaojie, Beijing, 100700, China.
Ya YuwenInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Nanxiaojie, Beijing, 100700, China.
Linda ZhongSchool of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, 999077, Hong Kong.
Zhaoxiang BianSchool of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, Kowloon Tong, Kowloon, 999077, Hong Kong.
Xuejie HanInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Nanxiaojie, Beijing, 100700, China. xuejiehan@126.com.
Aiping LuInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Nanxiaojie, Beijing, 100700, China. aipinglu@hkbu.edu.hk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundClinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for Chinese medicine (CM) are being developed to assist doctors with appropriate decisions concerning CM care. To date, there has been little investigation on the perspectives of those to whom the guidelines are directed.

methodsA self-administered questionnaire was sent to 4503 doctors in 28 provinces of China in the latter half of 2012. Questions were organized around the topics of knowledge, application, practice changes, beliefs and outcomes of implementation. Basic classificatory data on specialties and years of qualification were also collected.

resultsReplies were received from 4495 CM doctors (99.82%). Of these, 85.56% of CM doctors reported being familiar with CPG recommendations, but the overall adherence rate was only 50.39%. The length of time practicing CM may influence the rate of adherence, since 709 doctors (51.90%) with less than 5 years of experience reported never having followed CPGs. Doctors in nine specialties showed a modest degree of homogeneity in their attitudes towards CM diagnosis and treatment, which were generally positive. Most doctors regarded CPG-recommended therapies as safe (92%), economic (84%), and effective (76%). Approximately four-fifths of those questioned selected 'acceptable' (60.84%) and 'acceptable after revision' (19.23%) regarding their comprehensive assessment of the CPGs.

conclusionsAn encouraging result from this survey is that the majority of CM doctors support the concept of CPGs for the practice of CM. However, the results of this survey also suggest that improving the adherence of CM doctors to the guidelines remains a major challenge to improving the practice standards for CM.

Indexed as

Medicine, Chinese TraditionalAttitude of Health PersonnelChinaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansPhysiciansPractice Patterns, Physicians'Surveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID28877689
PMCPMC5588680

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.