ArticleJournal of evidence-based medicine2025
Chinese Expert Consensus on Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine for the Treatment of Tic Disorders.
Article in Journal of evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices of Caregivers of Children with Tic Disorders Regarding the Traditional Chinese Medicine Diagnosis and Treatment of the Condition.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2026Article
- Multimodal brain imaging neurotransmitter marker study of TD: a review of TCM effect mechanisms and precise diagnosis and treatment combining traditional Chinese and western medicine.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Protocol for developing an evidence-based expert consensus on efficacy evaluation and comorbidity management of integrated Chinese and Western medicine for pediatric tic disorders: a GRADE-based modified Delphi study.Frontiers in neurology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
36 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTic disorders are neurodevelopmental conditions that manifest in childhood or adolescence and can significantly impact the quality of life of affected children and their families to varying degrees. Integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine treatment strategies have demonstrated more pronounced efficacy and better safety profiles. However, there is currently no standardized clinical expert consensus on this approach. To address this, the National Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine initiated a project, and the China Association of Chinese Medicine assembled a team of authoritative domestic experts to develop this expert consensus, aiming to provide practical and feasible integrated treatment strategies for clinical practice.
methodsThis consensus identified clinical issues through research, conducted literature reviews, and established evidence based on systematic evaluations. Expert surveys, two rounds of Delphi questionnaires, and expert consensus meetings were conducted to formulate a series of recommendations.
resultsWe established a multidisciplinary consensus development panel. Based on systematic literature reviews, Delphi questionnaires, and consensus meetings, ten clinical issues were identified. Ultimately, a series of recommendations were developed, considering the balance of benefits and risks, the certainty of evidence, clinical feasibility, accessibility, and clinical acceptability.
conclusionsThese recommendations comprehensively address key issues in the field of integrated traditional Chinese and Western medicine treatment, including indications for the use of Chinese or Western medicine alone or in combination, specific treatment protocols, methods for dose reduction and discontinuation, evaluation intervals, and the management of adverse reactions.
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.