Article type
Abstract
"【Objective】 To evaluate quality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines and clinical expert consensus and promote the improvement of their quality.
【Methods】 A systematic collection of TCM guidelines and expert consensus published in medical journals in 2022 was conducted. Scientific, Transparent, and Applicable Ranking (STAR) tools was utilized during evaluation, after which scores (calculated by % of full sectional points) of each section was presented to evaluate the quality, and, furthermore, influencing factors of guidelines and expert consensus, using group-wise comparison and stratification.
【Results】 A total of 130 TCM guidelines and consensus were included. Domains with higher scores included Recommendations (65.3%), Evidence (55.9%), and Guideline development groups (54.2%). Regarding expert consensus, higher scores were observed in Recommendations (38.7%), Guideline development groups (37.0%), and Funding (30.0%). The total score of TCM guidelines surpassed that of national average, while TCM expert consensus fell behind the overall level. Statistical differences during stratified revealed that publishing journals and issuing institutions were factors potentially affecting TCM guidelines scores. Meanwhile, in the case of expert consensus scores, publishing journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories were factors showing statistical difference.
【Conclusion & Discussion】 The quantity and quality of TCM guidelines and clinical consensus are growing, with the former showing better quality. The overall quality of TCM guidelines surpasses national average, demonstrating rigorousness in their formulation. However, the overall quality of consensus remains lower than national level. Factors such as publishing journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories were identified as potential factors associated with quality of TCM guidelines and expert consensus."
【Methods】 A systematic collection of TCM guidelines and expert consensus published in medical journals in 2022 was conducted. Scientific, Transparent, and Applicable Ranking (STAR) tools was utilized during evaluation, after which scores (calculated by % of full sectional points) of each section was presented to evaluate the quality, and, furthermore, influencing factors of guidelines and expert consensus, using group-wise comparison and stratification.
【Results】 A total of 130 TCM guidelines and consensus were included. Domains with higher scores included Recommendations (65.3%), Evidence (55.9%), and Guideline development groups (54.2%). Regarding expert consensus, higher scores were observed in Recommendations (38.7%), Guideline development groups (37.0%), and Funding (30.0%). The total score of TCM guidelines surpassed that of national average, while TCM expert consensus fell behind the overall level. Statistical differences during stratified revealed that publishing journals and issuing institutions were factors potentially affecting TCM guidelines scores. Meanwhile, in the case of expert consensus scores, publishing journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories were factors showing statistical difference.
【Conclusion & Discussion】 The quantity and quality of TCM guidelines and clinical consensus are growing, with the former showing better quality. The overall quality of TCM guidelines surpasses national average, demonstrating rigorousness in their formulation. However, the overall quality of consensus remains lower than national level. Factors such as publishing journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories were identified as potential factors associated with quality of TCM guidelines and expert consensus."