ArticleFrontiers in medicine2022
Development of a core outcome set in the clinical trials of traditional Chinese medicine for diabetic foot: A study protocol.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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.
- Uncovering the gut - skin axis: the role of specific traditional Chinese medicine interventions in regulating gut microbiota for diabetic foot ulcers and the analysis of research status.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Review
- Development of a core outcome set for cardiovascular diabetology: a methodological framework.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2023Article
- Development of a Core Outcome Set for Randomised Controlled Trials of Nursing Education: A Methodological Framework.Journal of nursing management · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Diabetic Foot (DF) is one of the most common complications of diabetes, and it is characterized by high morbidity, disability, lethality and low cure rate. Traditional Chinese medicine treatment has certain characteristics and advantages in diabetic foot. Due to selective reporting bias and heterogeneity of research results, on the one hand, relevant clinical studies are of low quality and poor practicability, and on the other hand, similar studies cannot be included in meta-analysis to form high-quality evidence-based evidence and evaluate the value of studies. Therefore, the development of a core set of outcomes (COS-TCM-DF) for traditional Chinese medicine for the treatment of diabetic foot is an important way to address these issues. Methods: The COS-TCM-DF project will refer to the developed COS methodology and the steps are divided into four stages: (1) a scoping review and analysis of enrolled research protocols to collect and analyze all existing outcomes that have been used in trials on the prevention or treatment of diabetic foot with Chinese Medicine; (2) qualitative interviews with Diabetic foot patient and attendants to Collect additional outcomes related to them; (3) Gather opinionest and obtain initial consensus from key stakeholders, including patients, clinicians, researchers, and pharmaceutical company staff, through a Delphi survey; (4) a consensus meeting was held to develop the final COS-TCM-DF. Discussion: Currently, there is no COS on measuring or monitoring diabetic foot with TCM in trials or clinical practice. The COS-TCM-DF will be developed to advance the synthesis of evidence regarding the prevention and treatment of diabetic foot in TCM and to promote the standardized and consistent application of results in future studies in this field. Trial registration: Registered with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, December 2019 https://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1553.
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.