scholarly journals Quality assessment of reporting of randomization, allocation concealment, and blinding in traditional chinese medicine RCTs: A review of 3159 RCTs identified from 260 systematic reviews

Trials ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jia He ◽  
Liang Du ◽  
Guanjian Liu ◽  
Jin Fu ◽  
Xiangyu He ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Allocation Concealment

scholarly journals Mind-Body Therapies From Traditional Chinese Medicine: Evidence Map

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lissandra Zanovelo Fogaça ◽  
Caio Fabio Schlechta Portella ◽  
Ricardo Ghelman ◽  
Carmen Verônica Mendes Abdala ◽  
Mariana Cabral Schveitzer
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Tai Chi ◽  
Well Being ◽  
Evidence Map ◽  
Qi Gong ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
The Mind

Background: The mind-body therapies of traditional Chinese medicine include several intervention types and combine physical poses with conscious relaxation and breathing techniques. The purpose of this Evidence Map is to describe these different interventions and report related health outcomes.Methods: This evidence map is based on the 3iE Evidence Gap Map methodology. We searched seven electronic databases (BVS, PUBMED, EMBASE, PEDro, ScienceDirect, Web of Sciences, and PschyInfo) from inception to November 2019 and included systematic reviews only. Systematic reviews were analyzed based on AMSTAR 2. We used Tableau to graphically display quality assessment, the number of reviews, outcomes, and effects.Results: The map is based on 116 systematic reviews and 44 meta-analyses. Most of the reviews were published in the last 5 years. The most researched interventions were Tai Chi and Qi Gong. The reviews presented the following quality assessment: 80 high, 43 moderate, 23 low, and 14 critically low. Every 680 distinct outcome effect was classified: 421 as potential positive; 237 as positive; 21 as inconclusive/mixed; one potential negative and none no effect. Positive effects were related to chronic diseases; mental indicators and disorders; vitality, well-being, and quality of life. Potential positive effects were related to balance, mobility, Parkinson's disease, hypertension, joint pain, cognitive performance, and sleep quality. Inconclusive/mixed-effects justify further research, especially in the following areas: Acupressure as Shiatsu and Tuiná for nausea and vomiting; Tai Chi and Qi Gong for acute diseases, prevention of stroke, stroke risk factors, and schizophrenia.Conclusions: The mind-body therapies from traditional Chinese medicine have been applied in different areas and this Evidence Map provides a visualization of valuable information for patients, professionals, and policymakers, to promote evidence-based complementary therapies.

scholarly journals Methodological quality assessment for traditional Chinese medicine: CONSORT is better

Hepatology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 53 (6) ◽  
pp. 2148-2149 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ming-Hua Zheng ◽  
Yu-Chen Fan ◽  
Ke-Qing Shi ◽  
Yong-Ping Chen
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Methodological Quality

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews

LC-MS-Based Quality Assessment of a Traditional Chinese Medicine YANG XIN Formulation

Planta Medica ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 82 (13) ◽  
pp. 1208-1216 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ahmad Almalki ◽  
Ahmed Zaher ◽  
Johayra Simithy ◽  
William Keller ◽  
Matt Tripp ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Quality Assessment

scholarly journals An evidence mapping of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine for ulcerative colitis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xin Sun ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Jing Guo ◽  
Wen-Bin Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Route Of Administration ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Mapping

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document