ReviewBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025
Using patient-reported outcomes in clinical studies for cardiovascular diseases of Traditional Chinese medicine worldwide: a cross-sectional study.
Review in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. 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
background and purposeCardiovascular diseases (CVD) represent a major global health challenge. Clinical research is increasingly leveraging patient perspectives to evaluate the efficacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in treating these conditions. This study reviews and summarizes the application and characteristics of Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) in TCM for CVD, the overarching goal is to provide a resource that can guide potential research directions for PROs endpoints in future TCM CVD clinical research.
methodsWe searched clinical studies of TCM for CVD from the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform registered between January 1, 2010, and February 22, 2025. The outcome types, whether PRO measures (PROMs) explicitly mentioned, study design, clinical study phases,age, gender, and geographic region were analyzed. We classified the studies that explicitly specified PROs into 15 categories based on the International Classification of Diseases-11 (ICD-11),and compared their PROMs with the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET).
resultsA total of 636 TCM CVD studies were included, of which 394 employed PROs. However, 103 studies did not specify the PROMs utilized, including 33 that involved TCM syndrome scores. None of the most frequently used PROMs were TCM-specific. The most frequently studied disease categories - chronic coronary heart diseases and heart failure - employed PROMs that were basically aligned with COMET recommendations. In contrast, other disease categories were not aligned with COMET.
conclusionIn TCM clinical research on CVD, PROs have been commonly adopted as outcome measures, with usage steadily increasing. However, the application of TCM-specific PROMs remains limited, revealing a significant gap. PROMs recommended by COMET should be further investigated across a broader range of CVD categories. Furthermore, there is an urgent need for patient-centered research on TCM syndrome scores, highlighting the importance of developing robust, standardized TCM-specific PROMs tailored to this field.
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.