ZHANG Luan 1,2 , WANG Yangyang 2,3 , WANG Xu 4 , XIE Runsheng 2,3 , LI Su 1,2 , CHEN Yaolong 5,6 , LI Hui 2,3
  • 1. The Second Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, P. R. China;
  • 2. Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, P. R. China;
  • 3. State Key Laboratory of Traditional Chinese Medicine Syndrome/Research Group of Standardization of Chinese Medicine, The Second Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510006, P. R. China;
  • 4. Children’s Hospital of Chongqing Medical University, Chongqing 400014, P. R. China;
  • 5. Institute of Health Data Science, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
  • 6. WHO Collaborating Center for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation, Lanzhou 730000, P. R. China;
LI Hui, Email: lihuitcm@126.com
Traditional Chinese medicine; Guidelines; Consensus; Evaluation
10.7507/1672-2531.202311101
Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables References Cited by

Objective  To evaluate quality and current status of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) guidelines and consensus, and to promote the improvement of the quality of guidelines and consensus. Methods  A systematic collection of TCM guidelines and consensus published in medical journals in 2022 was conducted. It utilized scientific, transparent, and applicable ranking tools (STAR) for evaluation, analyzed the scoring rates (%), and assessed the quality level and influencing factors of guidelines and consensus through methods such as comparison and stratification. Results  A total of 130 TCM guidelines and consensus were included. Guideline areas with higher scores included recommendations (65.3%), evidence (55.9%), and guideline development groups (54.2%). In the case of consensus, higher scores were observed in recommendations (38.7%), guideline development groups (37.0%), and funding (30.0%). The total score rate of TCM guidelines exceeded that of national guidelines, while the consensus rate was lower. Stratified analysis revealed statistical differences in guideline score rates among journals and issuing institutions, as well as significant differences in consensus score rates among journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories. Conclusion  The quantity and quality of TCM guidelines and consensus are on a positive trajectory, with higher quality levels in guidelines compared to consensus. The overall quality of TCM guidelines surpasses national guidelines, particularly emphasizing the scientificity of guideline formulation. However, the overall quality of consensus remains lower than national consensus. Factors such as journals, formulation institutions, subjects, and funding categories are identified as potential influences on the quality of TCM guidelines and consensus.