Article type
Abstract
Background: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) interventions were widely used by clinical doctors in China. However, it was unclear how TCM interventions were described and on what kind of evidence was based in current Chinese Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs).
Objective: To review how TCM interventions were described and analyse the type of evidence cited by TCM interventions in Chinese CPGs.
Methods: WANGFANG, VIP, CNKI and CBM databases were systematically retrieved to collect the journal published Chinese CPGs. We classified TCM interventions presented in CPGs into three types: type A, TCM interventions were described as clear recommendations and provided with evidence quality and recommendation strength; type B, TCM interventions were described as clear recommendations and provided with references but without evidence quality and recommendation strength; Type C, TCM interventions were not described as a clear recommendations. Furthermore, the references of TCM interventions were classified into four types according to evidence sources: 1.CPGs, 2.SRs, 3.RCTs; 4.others. (including cohort study, case-control study, case report).
Results: 75 CPGs based on TCM interventions and 341 references cited by TCM interventions were identified. Among 75 CPGs, none was type A; 8 (10%) were type B and 67 (90%) were type C. Of the 341 references, 15(4%) were type1; 26(8%) were type2; 29 (9%) were type3 and 271(79%) were type4.
Conclusions: Only 10% Chinese CPGs based on TCM described the TCM interventions as clear recommendations, and 79% references from CPGs based on TCM were low-quality evidences. We suggest that CPG developers should refer CPGs, SRs and RCTs as references to recommend TCM interventions.
Objective: To review how TCM interventions were described and analyse the type of evidence cited by TCM interventions in Chinese CPGs.
Methods: WANGFANG, VIP, CNKI and CBM databases were systematically retrieved to collect the journal published Chinese CPGs. We classified TCM interventions presented in CPGs into three types: type A, TCM interventions were described as clear recommendations and provided with evidence quality and recommendation strength; type B, TCM interventions were described as clear recommendations and provided with references but without evidence quality and recommendation strength; Type C, TCM interventions were not described as a clear recommendations. Furthermore, the references of TCM interventions were classified into four types according to evidence sources: 1.CPGs, 2.SRs, 3.RCTs; 4.others. (including cohort study, case-control study, case report).
Results: 75 CPGs based on TCM interventions and 341 references cited by TCM interventions were identified. Among 75 CPGs, none was type A; 8 (10%) were type B and 67 (90%) were type C. Of the 341 references, 15(4%) were type1; 26(8%) were type2; 29 (9%) were type3 and 271(79%) were type4.
Conclusions: Only 10% Chinese CPGs based on TCM described the TCM interventions as clear recommendations, and 79% references from CPGs based on TCM were low-quality evidences. We suggest that CPG developers should refer CPGs, SRs and RCTs as references to recommend TCM interventions.