Are Published Cancer Care Trial Protocols With Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Concordant With SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018? A Scoping Review on Published Trial Protocols Between 2019 and 2022-Reference-Cited by-同舟云学术

Are Published Cancer Care Trial Protocols With Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Concordant With SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018? A Scoping Review on Published Trial Protocols Between 2019 and 2022

Published:2024-01 Issue: Volume:23 Page:
ISSN:1534-7354
Container-title:Integrative Cancer Therapies
language:en
Short-container-title:Integr Cancer Ther

Author:

Lai Hezheng¹^ORCID,Yang Peiying²^ORCID,Wang Xin Shelley²,Lim David³⁴,Lam Anderson¹,Shi Yucong⁵^ORCID,Huang Yishi¹⁶^ORCID,Zhu Xiaoshu¹⁷^ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Chinese Medicine Centre (an international collaboration between Western Sydney University and Beijing University of Chinese Medicine), Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia

2. University of Texas, MD Anderson Cancer Centre, Houston, Houston, TX, USA

3. University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, NSW, Australia

4. Mparntwe Center for Evidence in Health: A JBI Center of Excellence, Alice Spring, NT, Australia

5. Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China

6. The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia

7. School of Health Sciences, Western Sydney University, Campbelltown, NSW, Australia

Abstract

Background: The SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was created to guide the design and reporting of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinical trial protocols. This study aims to investigate the extent of concordance with this guideline in the relevant field of cancer care research. Methods: A scoping review of TCM cancer trial protocols published in English and Chinese since January 2019 was conducted. Five major academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched. Concordance with the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was assessed by descriptive analysis. Results: Fifty-three TCM cancer care trial protocols were identified, comprising 23 acupuncture, 26 Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and 4 Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) interventions. The majority of the checklist items had a low rate of concordance, especially in the reporting of quality control and safety, dosage, TCM diagnostic patterns, possible interactions between Western Medicine and TCM interventions, and TCM-related outcome assessments. Conclusions: Although the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 guideline was established through extensive Delphi consultation, there are low rates of concordance between published TCM cancer care clinical trial protocols with the guideline. Further research is necessary to understand the low rate of concordance and how scientific rigors of reporting can be improved in TCM cancer care research.

Funder

university of western sydney

Publisher

SAGE Publications

Link

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/15347354231223966

Reference77 articles.

1. Global Epidemiology of Cancer

2. Australian integrative oncology services: a mixed-method study exploring the views of cancer survivors

3. Integrative medicine and the oncology patient: options and benefits

4. Standard Protocol Items for Clinical Trials with Traditional Chinese Medicine 2018: Recommendations, Explanation and Elaboration (SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018)

5. Traditional Chinese Medicine in the United States: Current state, regulations, challenges, and the way forward