ArticleJournal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine
Research status of traditional & complementary medicine systems across the world.
Article in Journal of Ayurveda and integrative medicine. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDespite strong presence of biomedicine, traditional and complementary medicine (T & CM) systems have sustained with their multidimensional connect with people. However, their scientific acceptance and mainstreaming falls short due to inadequacies in research. Also, available reports in this regard scarcely focus on their individuality and present them as a consolidated entity.
objectivesThe present study was carried out to elucidate individual research status of certain WHO- acknowledged T & CM systems in a customized framework of indirect indicators. MATERIAL AND
methodsThe research status of selected systems was assessed on basis of quantitative indicators viz., research dissemination outcomes concerned with scientific documents and researchers, contribution in COVID-19 prevention and management, and patents profile.
resultsSystems such as Traditional Chinese Medicine and Acupuncture fare better than most others. The number of documents in multidisciplinary SCOPUS database was larger than those in PubMed, a healthcare database for almost all systems. Out of 28 lead authors, half belonged to developed countries, viz., USA and Germany. Highest citation count was recorded for TCM (n = 2238). Of the 105 journals analyzed, 40 were not dedicated to specific T & CM system. Most number of discretely dedicated journals (n = 20) mentioned TCM as primary scope. Cochrane systematic reviews (n = 142) and protocols (n = 33) were highest for Acupuncture, while many systems had zero presence. Maximum COVID-19 related clinical studies were registered for TCM (n = 335), followed by Ayurveda (n = 112). TCM related patents were also highest among all.
conclusionThere is a huge variation in the research status of different T & CM systems. The stakeholders of these systems need to establish a strong evidence base at par with biomedicine. United efforts at global level through organizations such as WHO-Global Traditional Medicine Centre (GTMC) might be helpful in this regard.
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.