ArticleJournal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan2022
Mixed methods research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review.
Article in Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Chinese herbal medicine (Guben Qushi Huayu formula) combined with Ixekizumab in reducing psoriasis vulgaris relapse: Protocol for a mixed-methods research study.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Article
- Bloodletting puncture in the treatment of acute ischemic stroke: protocol for a mixed-method study of a multi-center randomized controlled trial and focus group.Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2023Article
- A review of the global feasibility of medical malpractice insurance: Legal frameworks, economic viability, implementation challenges, and impact on patient safety.Journal of family & community medicineReview
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
Abstract
objectiveTo update the current characteristics about the scope and quality of mixed methods research (MMR) in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) after nearly 10 years.
methodsA 5-stage approach for conducting a scoping review was adopted. Articles published on the top 10 journals in CAM with the highest impact factor in 2020 were screened for MMR. Information of included articles were extracted, and then synthesized to illustrate the current state. Methodological quality was evaluated according to the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 version.
resultsA total of 55 (55/2991, 2%) articles using mixed methods were retrieved, including 17 medical studies and 38 ethnobotanical studies. We performed an in-depth analysis on the 17 medical studies, which studied cancer, stress, pain, fatigue, exercises, mindfulness intervention, herbal medicine use, art and acupuncture. Thirteen pilot studies applied MMR to evaluate the feasibility of interventions or programs (13/17, 76%); phenomenology was inferred as the most common philosophical assumptions (13/17, 76%); the most applied type of MMR was convergent design (16/17, 94%); integration often took place at integration (12/17, 71%). Among the 16 eligible studies for quality appraisal, majority were rated as good (14/16, 88%), whereas two studies were rated as poorly described. Primarily, a poor rating was due to incomplete reporting of data analysis and citations in qualitative components; lack of confounder controlling and the sampling strategy in quantitative components; poor description of integration and justification for mixed methods. Comparing with the previous review, fewer MMR were published in 2020 in CAM, but the proportion of studies that clearly reported MMR has increased by 4 times (4%→15%).
conclusionCAM researchers need to realize the benefits that MMR can have on conducting further health care research. Our findings highlight that applying MMR will be helpful to understand the complex dynamics and interdisciplinary nature of complex intervention. In addition, addressing a standardized reporting criteria for MMR is recommended.
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.