ArticleChinese journal of integrative medicine2023
Differences in Contents and Formation Methods of Clinical Questions in Chinese and Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Acupuncture-Moxibustion: Scoping Review.
Article in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo analyze the differences in the needs of users and the value orientation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) by comparing the contents and formation methods of clinical questions in Chinese and Korean CPGs of acupuncture-moxibustion (Acup-Mox).
methodsThe full text of CPGs was systematically searched from the official websites of Chinese and Korean traditional medicine societies and Acup-Mox associations, with the topic "Acup-Mox for treating diseases" and the retrieval time up to September 28, 2022. Two researchers screened the CPGs independently, and extracted the guidelines' topics, content, quantity and formation methods of clinical questions. The quantitative data were collected by counting the frequency, and the qualitative data were classified and described by thematic analysis.
resultsA total of 29 guidelines were included in this study, including 20 Chinese guidelines (305 questions) and 9 Korean guidelines (223 questions). The differences lie in the aspects of content and diversity, and formation method. As for content and diversity, Chinese guidelines focused mainly on the questions related to treatment such as the operation of specific intervention (86, 28.2%), efficacy of intervention (78, 25.6%), and also involving questions in diagnosis, prevention, and prognosis. While the clinical questions in Korean guidelines were concentrated to efficacy of intervention (218, 97.8%). As for formation method, in Chinese guidelines, questions were usually collected directly from clinicians, and then determined and optimized by experts. In Korean guidelines, frequently used clinical Acup-Mox interventions would be screened first. Then the expert group would set up corresponding intervention control measures so as to form clinical questions related to treatment efficacy.
conclusionsThe differences reflect the different needs of clinical practitioners, and the different aims or concepts in developing Acup-Mox guidelines between China and South Korea. Chinese guidelines emphasized promoting operation protocols and techniques of Acup-Mox for practical use, while Korean guidelines emphasized promoting the frequently used clinical intervention therapies. It is speculated that the guidelines from these two countries would play different roles in guiding clinical operation and supporting medical decision. In terms of formation methods of clinical questions, it is suggested to attach importance to optimizing process in formatting clinical questions to improve the clinical applicability of CPGs of Acup-Mox.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37658992What 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.