ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2020
A scoping review of cohort studies assessing traditional Chinese medicine interventions.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Quality Assessment of Cohort Studies in Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Scoping Review Over Two Decades.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
- Acupuncture treatment of Satoyoshi syndrome: a case report of a rare disease.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2025Article
- Oncoming Revolution in the Next Generation of Cohort Studies.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Article
- Quality Assessment of Traditional Persian Medicine Observational Studies.Iranian journal of public health · 2024Review
- Clinical Research: A Review of Study Designs, Hypotheses, Errors, Sampling Types, Ethics, and Informed Consent.Cureus · 2023Review
- Similarities and differences between China and Sweden regarding the core features of palliative care for people aged 60 or older: a systematic scoping review.BMC palliative care · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors at 4 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundsIdentifying topics and assessing the reporting quality of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) cohort studies.
methodsA scoping review of the literature was performed. A descriptive approach to summarize the core study characteristics was prepared, along with structured tables and figures to identify salient points of differences noted across studies. The reporting quality of TCM cohort studies was assessed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE)-cohort checklist.
resultsA total of 199 TCM cohort studies were included. The largest number of TCM cohort studies was conducted in Mainland China (70.9%). The TCM cohort study was first published in 2003. The top three diseases studied were Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), Stroke, and Asthma. As for the intervention methods, Chinese herbal medicine formulas (60.3%), acupuncture (14.1%) and single herbs (12.6%) accounted for the majority, followed by moxibustion (4.0%) and qigong (2.0%). The overage sufficient reporting rate of included TCM cohort studies according to the STROBE-cohort checklist was 42.9%. Comparing with Chinese literature, the reporting rates of English literature in most items were higher.
conclusionFor the application of cohort studies to inform the effects of TCM interventions, the interventions assessed and conditions studied were diverse, the reporting quality was unsatisfied.
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.