Mapping of systematic reviews on traditional medicine across health conditions: a protocol for a systematic map.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Introduction
Traditional medicine (TM) is an important part of healthcare either as the main healthcare system or as a complement to conventional medicine. The effectiveness of TM has been assessed in clinical trials that have been synthesised into thousands of systematic reviews (SRs). This study is commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is aimed at providing a systematic map of SRs of TM interventions across health conditions, as well as identifying gaps in the research literature in order to prioritise future primary research.Methods and analysis
This is the protocol for a systematic map of SRs reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Protocols (PRISMA-P). We will search 17 electronic databases to identify SRs of TM. The literature search covers the last 5 years, from January 2018 to December 2022. At least two independent reviewers will perform the database search, screening of eligible SRs, data extraction and quality assessments using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR 2). The characteristics and extent of SRs will be analysed according to disease classification, and type of TM intervention, and visualised by means of (interactive) graphical maps.Ethics and dissemination
Ethical approval is not required as this is a systematic map of published studies. The findings of the study will be disseminated through online-available maps, presentations and scientific publications.Prospero registration number
CRD42023416355.
SUBMITTER: Ang L
PROVIDER: S-EPMC10729180 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Mapping of systematic reviews on traditional medicine across health conditions: a protocol for a systematic map.
Ang Lin L Song Eunhye E Jong Miek C MC Alræk Terje T Wider Barbara B Choi Tae-Young TY Jun Ji Hee JH Lee Boram B Choi Yujin Y Lee Hye Won HW Yang Changsop C Lee Myeong Soo MS
BMJ open 20231211 12
<h4>Introduction</h4>Traditional medicine (TM) is an important part of healthcare either as the main healthcare system or as a complement to conventional medicine. The effectiveness of TM has been assessed in clinical trials that have been synthesised into thousands of systematic reviews (SRs). This study is commissioned by the World Health Organization (WHO) and is aimed at providing a systematic map of SRs of TM interventions across health conditions, as well as identifying gaps in the researc ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Background: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has already spread around the world. The modality of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) combined with Western medicine (WM) approaches is being used to treat COVID-19 patients in China. Several systematic reviews (SRs) are available highlighting the efficacy and safety of TCM combined with WM approaches in COVID-19 patients. However, their evidence quality is not completely validated. Purpose: We aimed to assess the methodological quality and the risk of bias of the included SRs, assess the evidence quality of outcomes, and present their trends and gaps using the evidence mapping method. Methods: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, CNKI, CBM, and Wanfang Data were searched from inception until March 2021 to identify SRs pertaining to the field of TCM combined with WM approaches for COVID-19. The methodological quality of the SRs was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2), the risk of bias of the included SRs was assessed with the Risk of Bias in Systematic Review (ROBIS) tool, and the evidence quality of outcomes was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Results: In total, 23 SRs were found eligible. Twenty-one were rated of moderate confidence by AMSTAR 2, while 12 were rated at low risk using the ROBIS tool. In addition, most outcomes were graded as having moderate quality using the GRADE system. We found that the combined use of TCM and WM approaches could improve the CT recovery rate, effective rate, viral nucleic acid negative conversion rate, and the disappearance rate of fever, cough, and shortness of breath. Also, these approaches could decrease the conversion rate from mild to critical, white blood cell counts, and lymphocyte counts and shorten the time to viral assay conversion and the length of hospital stay. Conclusion: TCM combined with WM approaches had advantages in efficacy, laboratory, and clinical symptom outcomes of COVID-19, but the methodological deficiencies of SRs should be taken into consideration. Therefore, to better guide clinical practice in the future, the methodological quality of SRs should still be improved, and high-quality randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies should also be carried out.
| S-EPMC8860227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTraditional 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionBased 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.
| S-EPMC8439020 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDiabetic retinopathy (DR) is a leading cause of vision impairment and blindness among individuals with diabetes. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been explored as an alternative treatment for DR, but the quality of evidence remains uncertain. A comprehensive evidence mapping study is necessary to synthesize existing SRs, identify gaps in the literature, and highlight areas requiring further research.ObjectiveThis study aims to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of SRs on TCM for DR and to assess the effectiveness of TCM interventions using an evidence-mapping approach.MethodsA comprehensive search of major biomedical databases to identify relevant SRs published up to November 2023. The reporting quality of the included SRs was assessed using the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines, while the methodological quality was evaluated using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool.ResultsA total of 51 SRs involving 131,084 participants were included in the analysis. Evidence mapping indicated that TCM is relatively effective in treating DR. However, the methodological quality and reporting standards of these SRs were generally suboptimal. According to the AMSTAR 2 assessment, only one SR (2%) was rated as high quality, 29 SRs (56.9%) were of moderate quality, 20 SRs (39.2%) were of low quality, and one SR (2%) was of critically low quality. While all studies adequately reported the PICO components, risk of bias assessment, and statistical methods, none provided information on funding sources. Furthermore, only one study (2%) included a list of excluded studies with reasons, and eight SRs (15.7%) documented pre-specified protocols. Common reporting deficiencies included incomplete protocol and registration details, unclear review rationales, and insufficient presentation of relevant outcome data.ConclusionThis evidence mapping study highlights the potential benefits of TCM for treating DR while identifying significant gaps in the existing literature. Although TCM interventions show potential benefits for treating DR, the overall quality of SRs is suboptimal. Future research should focus on addressing these gaps, particularly in areas such as funding disclosure and methodological rigor, to enhance the reliability of evidence on TCM interventions for DR.
| S-EPMC11841276 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTraditional medicine (TM) plays a significant role in healthcare either as part of the primary healthcare system or as an adjunct to conventional medicine. This study aimed to map systematic reviews (SRs) of TM modalities across health conditions and identify gaps in the research literature to facilitate priority setting in future TM research.MethodsWe searched 17 databases from January 2018 to December 2022. Reviewers in pairs independently performed the database search, screened each record for inclusion, extracted data, and performed quality assessments using the AMSTAR 2 - A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews. To be included in this evidence map, the studies had to be SRs of clinical studies that evaluated the effectiveness of a TM modalities. The included SRs were analyzed according to TM modality, ICD-11 disease classification, and health outcomes, and visualized using graphical plots.ResultsWe retrieved 241,509 records. After excluding duplicate records, 181,616 titles and abstracts were screened and 20,856 records were selected for full-text assessment, of which 18,137 records were further excluded. The final 2719 included SRs were primarily in adults (2591) with only 128 SRs in the pediatric population. The most commonly evaluated health conditions were diseases of the digestive system, circulatory system, and genitourinary system, with herbal medicine (n = 1867) and acupuncture (n = 471) being the most investigated TM modalities in treating these illnesses. Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, the methodology quality of the included SRs is considerably low.ConclusionThis evidence map provides a comprehensive overview of the extent and nature of the available research onTM modalities across health conditions. It provides an initial step towards characterizing the global evidence base and outlining gaps in the existing evidence. We regard this study as laying the basis for future research of TM modalities.RegistrationThe protocol of this map is registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023416355).
| S-EPMC11364122 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)-mental health (MH) comorbidity, by synthesising evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews (SRs).DesignScoping review of SRs.MethodsWe searched literature databases, registries and reference lists, and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of randomised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH. Inclusion criteria were: published after 2004, studying adults, in English and scoring >50% on Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); quality appraisal checklist). SRs were synthesised to identify research priorities, based on moderate/good quality evidence, sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety.ResultsWe included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs. Only one focused on MSK-MH comorbidity. Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK populations. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions. SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence (any comparator) in a moderate/large population for: low back pain (LBP) (yoga, acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilisation, osteopathy), osteoarthritis (OA) (acupuncture, tai chi), neck pain (acupuncture, manipulation/manual therapy), myofascial trigger point pain (acupuncture), depression (mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), meditation, tai chi, relaxation), anxiety (meditation/MBSR, moving meditation, yoga), sleep disorders (meditative/mind-body movement) and stress/distress (mindfulness). The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety-only three had evidence of harm. There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP, and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain, but few SRs reviewed cost-effectiveness and many found no data.ConclusionsOnly one SR studied MSK-MH comorbidity. Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH (LBP, OA, depression, anxiety and sleep problems) are yoga, mindfulness and tai chi. Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity, more high-quality, large randomised controlled trials in comorbid populations are needed.
| S-EPMC6196876 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic review (SR) guidelines recommend extending literature search to gray literature in order to identify all available data related to the review topic. We aim to conduct an overview of SRs on population health in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), to assess the methodology of these SRs, to produce an evidence map highlighting methodological gaps in SRs regarding gray literature searching, and to aid in developing future SRs by listing gray literature sources related to population health in MENA.Methods/designWe will conduct an overview of SRs based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. This overview will be reported following PRISMA 2009 guidelines. Using comprehensive search criteria, we will search the PubMed database to identify relevant SRs published since 2008. Our primary outcomes are gray literature sources and study-level quality in the gray literature. We will include MENA countries with Arabic, English, French, and/or Urdu as primary official languages and/or media of instruction in universities. Two reviewers will independently conduct a multilevel screening on Rayyan software. Extraction of relevant data will be done on Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) software. The methodological quality of included SRs will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool. Any disagreements will be resolved by discussion and consensus. We will estimate the overall proportion of SRs that used gray literature as one of their data sources. Subgroup analyses will be conducted to identify characteristics of these gray literature sources. Chi-squared and t tests will be used to determine whether the differences between subgroups are statistically significant. Additionally, an evidence gap map will be constructed to highlight characteristics and quality of the gray literature used in SRs on population health in MENA and emphasize existing gaps in gray literature searching. We will also list gray literature sources identified in the included SRs stratified by country and research topic.DiscussionThis overview will comprehensively assess the overall quality of the SRs on population health issues in MENA. Our findings will contribute to the improvement of population health research practices in MENA.Systematic review registrationThe systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) on 26 October 2018 (registration number CRD42017076736 (Syst Rev 2:4, 2013).
| S-EPMC6052529 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) are constantly increasing. However, if these reviews are to be of practical value, the evidence needs to be relevant, valid, and adequately reported. Cochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) are considered as high-quality systematic reviews that can inform health care decision making. Our aim was to provide an overview of the scope, findings, quality and impact of CSRs on the benefits and harms associated with TCM interventions for the treatment and prevention of disease to provide new information for clinical practice and future research.MethodsThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched up to May 2021, and descriptive characteristics were extracted. The correspondence between the questions asked in the CSRs and the available evidence, conclusions and certainty of findings (according to GRADE assessment), methodological quality (AMSTAR 2), and impact (Altmetric Attention Score [AAS], total citations by guideline, and total citations in Web of Science [WoS]) of CSRs were extracted. Tabular and graphical summaries of these descriptive characteristics were constructed.ResultsOf 104 CSRs on TCM identified, 70 diseases belonged to 16 disease systems and contained 1642 primary studies with 157,943 participants. Interventions included Chinese herbal medicine (n = 70), acupuncture (n = 28), TCM exercises (n = 4), and moxibustion (n = 2). Among 1642 primary studies, 662 studies included an intervention group treated with at least one TCM therapy and 980 studies included a combination of therapies. Promising outcomes from the 104 CSRs were divided into endpoint outcomes (34 diseases), doctor- or patient-reported outcomes (27 diseases), and surrogate outcomes (37 diseases). Despite the presence of promising outcomes, only 5/104 CSRs drew overall positive conclusions, 42 CSRs concluded the evidence was insufficient, and 54 failed to draw firm conclusions. GRADE assessments were reported in 41.3% of the CSRs, and the ratings were mostly low or very low. Comparing the questions asked and results obtained, there was frequently a lack of information about specific outcomes. Only 16 CSRs obtained results for all outcomes listed in the methods section. According to AMSTAR 2, 51 CSRs (49.0%) were of low quality. The total number of citations in the WoS was 2135 (mean ± SD: 20.8 ± 21.2), and 38.5% of the CSRs had been cited in guidelines 95 times.ConclusionAlthough TCM is commonly used, evidence of its effectiveness remains largely inconclusive. Rigorous high-quality trials are needed to support the performance of high-quality reviews and to increase the evidence base. It is critical to emphasize quality over quantity in future TCM research.
| S-EPMC9741948 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Objective: The aim of this study is to critically appraise whether published systematic reviews/meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine for adults with ischemic stroke are of sufficient quality and to rate the quality of evidence using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation approach. Method: A literature search was performed in the Cochrane Library, PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure, and SinoMed databases by March 2022. The inclusion criteria were systematic reviews/meta-analyses of traditional Chinese medicine in adults who suffered from ischemic stroke. A Measurement Tool to Access Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses for Abstract (PRISMA-A) statements were used to assess the methodological and reporting quality of the included reviews. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system was utilized to assess each report's evidence level. Results: Of the 1,908 titles and abstracts, 83 reviews met the inclusion criteria. These studies were published between 2005 and 2022. The results of AMSTAR-2 showed that 51.4% of the items were reported, but the registration, reasons for the inclusion of study design, the list of excluded studies, and funding information were ignored in the majority of the reviews. The results of PRISMA-A showed that 33.9% of items were reported, and the information on registration, limitation, and funding was not available in many publications. The assessment of the evidence with the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation showed that more than half (52/83) of the included studies had either low or very low levels of evidence. Conclusion: The reporting quality in the abstract of systematic reviews/meta-analyses on traditional Chinese medicine for ischemic stroke is poor and does not facilitate timely access to valid information for clinical practitioners. Although the methodological quality is of a medium level, this evidence lacks certainty, especially with a high risk of bias in individual studies.
| S-EPMC9947652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Chronic bronchitis (CB) is a common clinical chronic respiratory disease, which has a high incidence in the middle aged and elderly population. With the development of the disease, the number of acute attacks becomes more and more frequent, which leads to the continuous decrease of lung function. If not treated in time, it will lead to a variety of complications and seriously affect the quality of life of patients. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) or TCM combined with western medicine is highly effective in the treatment of CB disease. In recent years, there are many systematic reviews on the use of TCM therapy in the treatment of CB, and the efficacy and safety of TCM in the treatment of CB diseases are evaluated. The aim of this study was to re-evaluate the Meta analysis/Systematic reviews (MAs/SRs) of TCM for the treatment of CB, aiming to provide a clinical basis for the treatment of CB by TCM. Retrieval among Chinese and English databases such as China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang database, China Scientific Journals Database, SinoMed, PubMed, Web of Science, The Cochrane Library and EMbase, etc. were conducted within the duration from database establish Tion date to March 2023.The included research was independently conducted by 2 researchers for literature screening, data extraction, and quality evaluation. The AMSTAR 2 scale was used to evaluate the quality of the report, the PRISMA 2020 statement evaluated the quality of the report, the ROBIS tool evaluated the risk of bias, and the GRADE quality evaluation tool evaluated the quality of the evidence. Fifteen MAs/SRs were included, for a total of 224 studies involving 20,710 patients with CB. The 15 studies included in AMSTAR 2 are of very low quality. The ROBIS evaluation results showed that 8 MAs/SRs were considered to have high risk and 7 with low risk. The PRISMA 2020 report quality showed evaluation results of the included studies scores between 24 and 30, among them 13 with high quality and 2 with low quality. The GRADE system results showed that, within 70 outcome indicators, only 14 of them have moderate quality for evidence, with 31 for low quality, 25 for very low quality, and none for high quality. The MAs/SRs methodological quality of using TCM for treatment CB is generally poor, the quality of reports as well as evidence are generally low, and the risk of bias is high, therefore we should treat these results with caution.
| S-EPMC10713115 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a rapidly spreading disease that has caused an extensive burden to the world. Consequently, a large number of clinical trials have examined the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) for treating and preventing COVID-19, with coinciding proliferation of reviews summarizing these studies.ObjectiveThis study aimed to evaluate the methodological quality and evidence quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the efficacy of TCM.Search strategySeven electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP, Wanfang Data and SinoMed, were searched for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in October 2021. Search terms such as "Chinese medicine," "Lianhua Qingwen" and "COVID-19" were used.Inclusion criteriaSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of TCM treatment of COVID-19 were included.Data extraction and analysisA Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews Version 2.0 (AMSTAR 2) was used to evaluate the methodological quality. The quality of evidence was graded using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Data extraction and analysis were performed by two reviewers independently.ResultsThere were 17 meta-analyses included in our overview. The intervention group was defined as TCM combined with Western medicine, while the control group was Western medicine alone. The methodological quality of all the included studies was moderate to poor. A total of 89 outcome indicators were evaluated, of which, 8 were rated as moderate quality, 39 as low quality, and 41 as very low quality. Only one outcome measure was graded as being of high quality. The moderate quality of evidence indicated that, for the treatment of COVID-19, the clinical efficacy of TCM in combination with Western medicine was better, in terms of lung recovery, rate of conversion to severe/critical cases, symptom scores, duration of symptoms, mortality, and length of hospital stay.ConclusionEvidence from the included studies shows that, compared with conventional Western medical therapy alone, the addition of TCM to COVID-19 treatment may improve clinical outcomes. Overall, the quality of evidence of TCM for COVID-19 was moderate to poor. Meta-analyses of the use of TCM in the treatment of COVID-19 can be used for clinical decision making by accounting for the experiences of clinical experts, medical policies, and other factors.
| S-EPMC9225921 | biostudies-literature