Author:
Li Juan,Li Bin,Zhao Xin-ke,Tu Jia-yin,Li Yingdong
Abstract
Abstract
Objectives
To investigate how many traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines adopted a grading system and the differences among them, and the distribution of level of evidence used to support TCM recommendations.
Methods
A comprehensive search of relevant guideline webpages and literature databases were undertaken from inception to August 2018 to identify guidelines including TCM interventions. Two independent reviewers extracted the information about grading systems and recommendations.
Results
One hundred forty-two TCM guidelines were included, among which, 68 (47.9%) adopted a total of eight grading systems. The definitions, letters, and codes among these systems varied significantly. A total of 1284 recommendations were extracted from included TCM guidelines. More than 60% recommendations were based on a low and very low level of evidence (level C:33.4% and level D: 30.2%). Only 7.8% recommendations were rated as strong recommendation (grade I), while 76.2% recommendations were rated as conditional recommendation (grade II).
Conclusions
Various grading systems were used in TCM guidelines, which might confuse guideline users. The low proportion of high level of evidence in TCM recommendations might downgrade the confidence to TCM interventions.
Funder
Special Funds for Fundamental Scientific Research Business Expenses of Central Universities
Foundation of Key Laboratory of Prevention and Treatment for Chronic Diseases by Traditional Chinese Medicine of Gansu Province
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Subject
Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health,General Medicine
Reference33 articles.
1. Hesketh T, Zhu WX. Health in China. Traditional Chinese medicine: one country, two systems. BMJ. 1997;315:115–7.
2. Chen YL, Yao L, Xiao XJ, et al. Quality assessment of clinical guidelines in China: 1993–2010. Chin Med J. 2012;125(20):3660–4.
3. Chen YL, WANG C, Shang H, Yang K, Susan L. Clinical practice guidelines in China. BMJ. 2018;360:j5158.
4. Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck Y, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328(7454):1490.
5. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336:924–6.
Cited by
2 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献