1
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Comprehensive consideration of multiple determinants from evidence to recommendations in guidelines for most traditional Chinese medicine was suboptimal: a systematic review

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The overall comprehensive consideration of the factors influencing the recommendations in the traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines remains poorly studied. This study systematically evaluate the factors influencing recommendations formation in the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) and TCM CPGs.

          Methods

          This was a methodological review in which we searched six databases and multiple related websites. The GRADE CPGs were identified as the guidelines developed by the GRADE Working Group or the two Co-Chairs. For the TCM CPGs, we randomly selected guidelines that were published by the TCM or integrative medicine academic societies from China mainland (published by the TCM or integrative medicine academic societies of China mainland). Two reviewers independently screened and extracted data. We included CPGs published in 2018–2022. We extracted information on the influencing factors of evidence to recommendation and conducted the analyses using descriptive statistics and calculated the proportion of relevant items by IBM SPSS Statistics and Microsoft Excel to compare the differences between the GRADE CPGs and the TCM CPGs.

          Results

          Forty-five GRADE CPGs (including 912 recommendations) and 88 TCM CPGs (including 2452 recommendations) were included. TCM recommendations mainly considered the four key determinants of desirable anticipated effects, undesirable anticipated effects, balance between desirable and undesirable effects, certainty of evidence, with less than 20% of other dimensions. And TCM CPGs presented more strong recommendations (for or against) and inappropriate discordant recommendations than GRADE CPGs. GRADE CPGs were more comprehensive considered about the factors affecting the recommendations, and considered more than 70% of all factors in the evidence to recommendation.

          Conclusions

          The TCM CPGs lack a comprehensive consideration of multiple influencing determinants from evidence to recommendations. In the future, the correct application of the GRADE approaches should be emphasized.

          Supplementary Information

          The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12906-023-04321-0.

          Related collections

          Most cited references29

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          GRADE guidelines: 14. Going from evidence to recommendations: the significance and presentation of recommendations.

          This article describes the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to classifying the direction and strength of recommendations. The strength of a recommendation, separated into strong and weak, is defined as the extent to which one can be confident that the desirable effects of an intervention outweigh its undesirable effects. Alternative terms for a weak recommendation include conditional, discretionary, or qualified. The strength of a recommendation has specific implications for patients, the public, clinicians, and policy makers. Occasionally, guideline developers may choose to make "only-in-research" recommendations. Although panels may choose not to make recommendations, this choice leaves those looking for answers from guidelines without the guidance they are seeking. GRADE therefore encourages panels to, wherever possible, offer recommendations. Copyright © 2013. Published by Elsevier Inc.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            GRADE guidelines: 15. Going from evidence to recommendation-determinants of a recommendation's direction and strength.

            In the GRADE approach, the strength of a recommendation reflects the extent to which we can be confident that the composite desirable effects of a management strategy outweigh the composite undesirable effects. This article addresses GRADE's approach to determining the direction and strength of a recommendation. The GRADE describes the balance of desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest among alternative management strategies depending on four domains, namely estimates of effect for desirable and undesirable outcomes of interest, confidence in the estimates of effect, estimates of values and preferences, and resource use. Ultimately, guideline panels must use judgment in integrating these factors to make a strong or weak recommendation for or against an intervention. Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              GRADE guidelines: 9. Rating up the quality of evidence.

              The most common reason for rating up the quality of evidence is a large effect. GRADE suggests considering rating up quality of evidence one level when methodologically rigorous observational studies show at least a two-fold reduction or increase in risk, and rating up two levels for at least a five-fold reduction or increase in risk. Systematic review authors and guideline developers may also consider rating up quality of evidence when a dose-response gradient is present, and when all plausible confounders or biases would decrease an apparent treatment effect, or would create a spurious effect when results suggest no effect. Other considerations include the rapidity of the response, the underlying trajectory of the condition, and indirect evidence. Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                feiyt@bucm.edu.cn
                Journal
                BMC Complement Med Ther
                BMC Complement Med Ther
                BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
                BioMed Central (London )
                2662-7671
                4 January 2024
                4 January 2024
                2024
                : 24
                : 19
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Centre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, ( https://ror.org/05damtm70) Beijing, China
                [2 ]Institute of Excellence in Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, ( https://ror.org/05damtm70) Beijing, China
                [3 ]Beijing GRADE Centre, Beijing, China
                [4 ]Kunming Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, ( https://ror.org/027f56t09) Kunming, China
                [5 ]Research Center of Clinical Epidemiology, Peking University Third Hospital, ( https://ror.org/04wwqze12) Beijing, China
                Article
                4321
                10.1186/s12906-023-04321-0
                10765706
                38178118
                073a58ab-8f23-4210-929a-131793736b6a
                © The Author(s) 2023

                Open Access This 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.

                History
                : 22 March 2023
                : 20 December 2023
                Funding
                Funded by: The Key Research and Development Program of Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region
                Award ID: 2021B03006-4
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © BioMed Central Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2024

                clinical practice guidelines,evidence to recommendation,discordant recommendations,inappropriate discordant recommendations,traditional chinese medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article