ArticleBMJ global health2024
Useful or not? The discussion of traditional Chinese medicine to treat COVID-19 on a Chinese social networking site.
Article in BMJ global health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Media framing of traditional Chinese medicine and its public health implications: a cross-national panel analysis of news coverage in the US, UK, and Europe (2010-2024).Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Public perceptions and engagement with Traditional Chinese Medicine on Japanese social media (2010-2025): a text mining approach.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Improving the communication of uncertainty in food safety on social media: a content analysis of aspartame risk messages.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The use of traditional medicine is a global phenomenon, and the WHO advocated its appropriate integration into modern healthcare systems. However, there is a hot debate about the legitimacy of traditional medicine among the general public. Here, we investigated the debate in the Chinese digital context by analysing 1954 responses related to 100 questions about traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) treatment against COVID-19 on the Zhihu platform. Attitude function theory was applied to understand the reasons underlying public attitudes.Results showed that Zhihu users generally held a supportive attitude toward TCM. Their attitudes mainly came from their own experience and traditional media. The general users were more negative while medical professionals were more positive toward TCM. Ego defence (eg, derogating evidence sources) was used the most to support attitudes, followed by value expression (eg, believing in science). Supporters showed fewer expressions of faith (eg, the use of TCM is a kind of faith), politics (eg, supporting TCM is about politics) and science value (eg, TCM is a field of science), fewer ego defence, more patriotism and cultural confidence expressions (eg, TCM is a cultural pride) and more knowledge explanation (eg, TCM accelerates the metabolism of phlegm) than expected. Opposers showed fewer utilitarian and knowledge functions, fewer expressions of patriotism and more expressions of faith, politics and economics, but more ego defence functions than expected. Opposing posts were more likely to attract engagement than supporting and neutral posts. Posts that mentioned attitude functions generally attracted more engagement.Our findings indicate that TCM debate in modern China is not only relevant to medical science and health, but also rooted deeply in cultural ideology, politics and economics. The findings can provide global insights into the development of proactive policies and action plans that will help the integration of traditional medicine into modern healthcare systems.
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.