scholarly journals Content analysis of systematic reviews on the effectiveness of Traditional Chinese Medicine

2013 ◽  
Vol 33 (2) ◽  
pp. 156-163 ◽  
Author(s):  
Junwen Wang ◽  
Meng Cui ◽  
Hongguan Jiao ◽  
Yuanyuan Tong ◽  
Jun Xu ◽  
...  
2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xin Sun ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Jing Guo ◽  
Wen-Bin Hou ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been a proposed treatment option for ulcerative colitis (UC), however it has been difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence as various Chinese medicine therapies may produce effects differently. The aim of this evidence mapping is to visually understand the available evidence in the use of TCM in the treatment of UC, and to identify gaps in evidence to inform priorities of future research. Methods A systematic electronic literature search of six databases were performed to identify systematic reviews (SRs) on different Chinese medicine therapies in the treatment in UC. Methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Results The mapping was based on 73 SRs, which included nine interventions that met eligibility criteria. The quality of the included SRs was very low. The diseases stages of patients with UC varied greatly, from active to remission, to non-acute outbreak, to not reported. The results mostly favored the method of intervention. Oral administration combined with enema was the most widely used route of administration in secondary research. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, the treatment of UC with TCM can only be recommended cautiously. A majority of included SRs did not report the location of the disease, the disease classification, and the route of administration of the intervention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of Chinese medicine alone in the treatment of UC. The effectiveness of combined Chinese and conventional medicine combined with different routes of administration cannot be confirmed. Attention should be paid to the methodological quality of the systematic review. Unifies the outcome indicators used in the evaluation of effectiveness.


2021 ◽  
Vol 48 ◽  
pp. 101948
Author(s):  
Zeqi Dai ◽  
Nicola Robinson ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Susan Wieland ◽  
Tae-Hun Kim ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rongna Lian ◽  
Ya Gao ◽  
Ruinian Zhang ◽  
Dairong Xie ◽  
Yi Zhang ◽  
...  

Abstract Background: Characteristics of registered systematic reviews (SRs) on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) remain unclear. This study aimed to analyze research collaboration, interventions, and outcomes in registered SRs of TCM associated with COVID-19.Methods: PROSPERO was searched to obtain SRs of TCM related to COVID-19 up to July 1, 2020. VOSviewer 1.6.14 software was used to generate network maps for countries, institutions, and provinces.Results: A total of 80 SRs were included, which were registered by 81 institutions from 6 countries. China (76, 95.00%) was the country with the highest output. 21 provinces in China contributed to the registration of SRs, Sichuan (25, 30.12%), Beijing (13, 15.66%), and Shaanxi (7, 8.43%) were the top three productive provinces. The top three productive institutions were Chengdu University of traditional Chinese medicine (18, 24.66%), Shaanxi University of traditional Chinese medicine (7, 9.59%), and Beijing University of traditional Chinese medicine (6, 8.22%). Collaborations among countries, provinces, and institutions were sparse. Interventions investigated included traditional Chinese medicine, integrated Chinese and Western medicine, acupuncture, and Taijiquan, but the description was brief, and no specific implementation plan was provided. The most frequently used primary outcome was clinical efficiency (45, 56.25%), and the most frequently used secondary outcome was the adverse event (50, 62.5%). The expression of the outcomes was not standardized.Conclusions: Although there were some collaborations between provinces and institutions, cooperation between countries should be further strengthened. The identified deficiencies in interventions and outcomes should be given more attention by future researchers.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document