ReviewIntegrative medicine research2026
A comprehensive value evaluation index system for provincial medical insurance access to traditional Chinese medicine preparations in medical institutions.
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2026. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study established a comprehensive value evaluation index system for provincial medical insurance access to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) preparations in medical institutions from the insurance viewpoint. The system aims to provide a reference for insurance access applications and decision-making. Methods: The index system was first established through systematic evaluation and expert consultation. The Delphi method and analytic hierarchy process were employed to reveal the index system and calculate each indicator's weight. The indicator selection thresholds were based on the importance score thresholds and the coefficient of variation thresholds. Indicators with importance scores higher than the threshold and coefficient of variation less than the threshold were included in the index system. Results: The researchers retrieved 6201 articles in total, 68 of which were retained following a review of the titles and full text. The initially established index system had six dimensions (i.e., basic information and TCM theory of the preparation, safety, effectiveness, economy, innovation, and fairness), 25 primary indicators, and 55 secondary indicators. Two expert consultation rounds were employed to collect the opinions of 13 and 11 experts. The final index system considered the index system's aforementioned six dimensions, including safety (30.44 %), effectiveness (43.18 %), economy (14.72 %), innovation (6.48 %), and fairness (5.17 %), along with 22 primary indicators, and 26 secondary indicators. Moreover, the top three weight indicators were the prescription source (secondary indicator), effectiveness evaluation based on real-world evidence (primary indicator), and direct costs (secondary indicator). Conclusion: The proposed index system elucidates the scope of evidence and basic research design for TCM preparations from the insurance viewpoint. It also integrates cost evaluation and value evaluation indicators and improves the definition of reference drugs, thus providing a reference for achieving rational clinical drug usage and a pricing policy for TCM preparations.
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.