Cargando…

A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines

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 data...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Li, Juan, Li, Bin, Zhao, Xin-ke, Tu, Jia-yin, Li, Yingdong
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7285562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32517702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01432-x
_version_ 1783544725356150784
author Li, Juan
Li, Bin
Zhao, Xin-ke
Tu, Jia-yin
Li, Yingdong
author_facet Li, Juan
Li, Bin
Zhao, Xin-ke
Tu, Jia-yin
Li, Yingdong
author_sort Li, Juan
collection PubMed
description 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7285562
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-72855622020-06-10 A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines Li, Juan Li, Bin Zhao, Xin-ke Tu, Jia-yin Li, Yingdong Health Qual Life Outcomes Review 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. BioMed Central 2020-06-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7285562/ /pubmed/32517702 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01432-x Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Review
Li, Juan
Li, Bin
Zhao, Xin-ke
Tu, Jia-yin
Li, Yingdong
A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines
title A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines
title_full A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines
title_fullStr A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines
title_full_unstemmed A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines
title_short A critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional Chinese medicine guidelines
title_sort critical review to grading systems and recommendations of traditional chinese medicine guidelines
topic Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7285562/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32517702
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12955-020-01432-x
work_keys_str_mv AT lijuan acriticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT libin acriticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT zhaoxinke acriticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT tujiayin acriticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT liyingdong acriticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT lijuan criticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT libin criticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT zhaoxinke criticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT tujiayin criticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines
AT liyingdong criticalreviewtogradingsystemsandrecommendationsoftraditionalchinesemedicineguidelines