ArticleBMJ open2025
Best practices in methodological frameworks for evaluating procedure-based treatments in traditional, complementary and integrative medicine: a scoping review protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionWhile numerous evidence-based studies have been conducted on procedure-based treatments (PBTs) in traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) (eg, acupuncture, special diets, lifestyle modification, METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Forty-three databases will be systematically searched using comprehensive search strategies. Two independent reviewers will screen potential literature and select eligible studies. Literature management will be performed using NoteExpress and Excel 2016, with a pre-designed standardised Excel sheet employed for data extraction.This scoping review will include literature that provides multidimensional evaluation (eg, efficacy, safety and health economics) for PBTs in TCIM. This encompasses methodological guidelines, systematic protocols outlining evaluative structures, procedural steps and core components, as well as conceptual or theoretical frameworks describing phased evaluation processes. Screening and data extraction will be conducted independently by two researchers. Inter-rater agreement will be assessed using the Kappa statistic. Any discrepancies will be resolved through consultation with a senior reviewer or correspondence with original authors.Data extraction will capture: general information, types and number of included primary studies, interventions assessed, evaluation dimensions, procedural workflows for evaluation, version iterations of evaluation frameworks, staging configurations for evaluation, framework development methods, as well as documented strengths and limitations of the frameworks.Results will be structured following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews checklist. Findings will be presented through tables, charts and figures, with narrative synthesis describing key outcomes. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No private information was issued in the entire process of the systematic review. Therefore, ethical approval is not required. Findings of the scoping review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and/or disseminated through conference presentations. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: The protocol has been archived in the Open Science Framework (Registration DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/92DRM).
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.