SynthesisBMC complementary medicine and therapies2024
Comprehensive consideration of multiple determinants from evidence to recommendations in guidelines for most traditional Chinese medicine was suboptimal: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2024. 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe overall comprehensive consideration of the factors influencing the recommendations in the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines remains poorly studied. This study systematically evaluate the factors influencing recommendations formation in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and TCM CPGs.
methodsThis was a methodological review in which we searched six databases and multiple related websites. The GRADE CPGs were identified as the guidelines developed by the GRADE Working Group or the two Co-Chairs. For the TCM CPGs, we randomly selected guidelines that were published by the TCM or integrative medicine academic societies from China mainland (published by the TCM or integrative medicine academic societies of China mainland). Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We included CPGs published in 2018-2022. We extracted information on the influencing factors of evidence to recommendation and conducted the analyses using descriptive statistics and calculated the proportion of relevant items by IBM SPSS Statistics and Microsoft Excel to compare the differences between the GRADE CPGs and the TCM CPGs.
resultsForty-five GRADE CPGs (including 912 recommendations) and 88 TCM CPGs (including 2452 recommendations) were included. TCM recommendations mainly considered the four key determinants of desirable anticipated effects, undesirable anticipated effects, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, with less than 20% of other dimensions. And TCM CPGs presented more strong recommendations (for or against) and inappropriate discordant recommendations than GRADE CPGs. GRADE CPGs were more comprehensive considered about the factors affecting the recommendations, and considered more than 70% of all factors in the evidence to recommendation.
conclusionsThe TCM CPGs lack a comprehensive consideration of multiple influencing determinants from evidence to recommendations. In the future, the correct application of the GRADE approaches should be emphasized.
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.