LI Huizhen 1 # , LIU Meijun 2 # , LIANG Ning 1 , LIU Yuqi 1 , LIU Mengyu 1 , WANG Yanping 1 , SHI Nannan 1
  • 1. Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700, P.R.China;
  • 2. Dongzhimen Hospital affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100700, P.R.China;
WANG Yanping, Email: wangyanping4816@163.com; SHI Nannan, Email: 13811839164@vip.126.com
Traditional Chinese medicine; Clinical pathway; Evidence-based medicine; Citation of evidence
10.7507/1672-2531.201909043
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objectives To analyze the citation of evidence in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) clinical pathways in China, and to provide suggestions for future development and revision of TCM clinical pathways.Methods TCM clinical pathways released on the websites of national administration of TCM and China association of Chinese medicine were obtained, with the retrieval time limit to June 2019. Two researchers separately utilized the Excel to extract data and performed a descriptive analysis.Results A total of 405 TCM clinical pathways were included, involving internal medicine, surgery, gynecology and pediatrics. Internal medicine accounted for the largest proportion of the TCM clinical pathways (133). All the 405 pathways cited references as evidence, among which the maximum and minimum quantities of cited references were 11 and 1, respectively, and the median was 3. More than 90% of the TCM clinical pathways cited the evidence in the parts of diagnosis and efficacy evaluation. For parts of TCM and western medicine treatment, the proportion of TCM clinical pathways which cited evidence was less than 75%; for parts of rehabilitation and nursing, the proportion of TCM clinical pathways which cited evidence was less than 2%. The types of evidence being cited were standard indicators (683), clinical practice guidelines (488), textbooks (236), consensus opinions, ancient books and clinical surveys. The released time was reported in 89.25% of the cited evidence; the largest time interval was between the release time of the standard indicators (evidence) and that of the TCM pathways. Among the evidence released more than 15 years before the release of the TCM pathways, the proportion of standard indicators was the highest (57.12%).Conclusions The published TCM clinical pathways are all developed based on evidence, however, the evidence citation ratio in different parts varies greatly. In some TCM clinical pathways, the cited evidences are not reported normatively, and some evidence are poor in timeliness.

Citation： LI Huizhen, LIU Meijun, LIANG Ning, LIU Yuqi, LIU Mengyu, WANG Yanping, SHI Nannan. Analysis of the citation of evidence in traditional Chinese medicine clinical pathways. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2020, 20(3): 306-310. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201909043 Copy

Copyright © the editorial department of Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine of West China Medical Publisher. All rights reserved