The Use of GRADE in Cochrane Reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Article type
Authors
Wang Q1, Lai H2, Guo T2, Xiao Y2, Ge L1
1Evidence-Based Social Science Research Center, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
2Department of Social Science and Health Management, School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
Abstract
Background: The researchers of Chinese Medicine have conducted an increasing number of systematic reviews on the field of Chinese medicine with themes of drugs and diseases currently. These include some high-quality researches that have received attention at home and abroad, which plays a positive role in Chinese medicine reaching out to the world. GRADE is widely used in literature quality assessment, but the application status in the Cochrane Reviews of traditional Chinese medicine is unclear.

Objectives: To carry out a cross-sectional study on the application status of GRADE in Cochrane reviews of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Methods: One reviewer found all Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. All reviewers were divided into two groups and two reviewers in each group independently screened titles and abstracts of Cochrane Database Systematic Reviews. We included all of the Chinese medicine (Chinese herbal medicine and Chinese patent medicine), acupuncture and massage. Retracted articles were excluded. The updated and duplicated articles in full-text screening are also excluded. We extracted the comparison group, the number of studies, the number of participants, downgraded entry of GRADE and the reason for downgrading and so on. Two reviewers extracted data independently and the other reviewer checked. Any conflicts in the results are discussed after careful discussion. Statistical analyses will be conducted with SPSS 24.0.

Results: A total of 243 articles were included and 90 (37.04%) articles using GRADE to assess the quality of evidence. We extracted 649 outcomes of TCM treatment, including 500 (77.04%) were downgraded due to the risk of bias, 451 (69.49%) were downgraded due to imprecision, and 96 (14.79%) were downgraded due to inconsistency. Indirectness and publication bias accounted for 5.55% and 2.16%. This study is ongoing, and all results will be presented at the Cochrane Colloquium as available.
Conclusions: This study is ongoing, and all results will be presented at the Cochrane Colloquium as available.

Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: No applicable.