Clinical research priority setting for traditional Chinese medicine_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHANG Xiaoyu , QIU Ruijin , LI Chengyu ,  SHANG Hongcai

Key Laboratory of Chinese Internal Medicine of Ministry of Education, Dongzhimen Hospital Affiliated to Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100700, P.R.China;

Corresponding author：

SHANG Hongcai, Email: shanghongcai@foxmail.com

Keywords：

Clinical research; Priority setting; Traditional Chinese medicine; Evidence-based decision; Resource allocation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.201811009

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

In order to mediate the contradiction between the high quantity and low quality of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinical research, to avoid blind research and waste of resources, and to promote the benign development of TCM clinical research, we proposed carrying out health research priority setting on the TCM clinical research. This paper defined the main content of TCM clinical research and briefly introduced the research status of priority setting methods. We described a five-step process of the TCM priority setting research: setting the research scope and plan, establishing the working group, mapping the research field, identifying priority research areas, reporting, evaluating and updating the research. It is expected that this area will receive the attention of relevant researchers, policy makers and research funders.

Citation： ZHANG Xiaoyu, QIU Ruijin, LI Chengyu, SHANG Hongcai. Clinical research priority setting for traditional Chinese medicine. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2019, 19(3): 373-376. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.201811009 Copy

1.	张晓雨, 商洪才. 近十年国内中医药临床研究发展现状及存在的问题. 中医杂志, 2018, 59(21): 1808-1811.
2.	赵一鸣, 曾琳, 李楠. 临床研究的四个基本特征. 中华医学杂志, 2012, 92(36): 2521-2523.
3.	Food and Drug Administration. Clinical research versus medical treatment. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/ClinicalTrials/ClinicalvsMedical/ucm20041761.htm. 2018-3-22/2018-9-25.
4.	“九五”以来中医药学科发展综合报告四、中医药学科优先领域与发展方向. “九五”以来中医药学科发展报告, 2008.
5.	Switzerland WGOPS. Priority setting for health research: lessons from developing countries. Health Policy Plan, 2000, 15(2): 130-136.
6.	Okello D, Chongtrakul P. A manual for research priority setting using the ENHR strategy. In Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), 2000.
7.	Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, et al. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2014, 12: 23.
8.	Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, et al. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res, 2009, 9(1): 1-12.
9.	Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, et al. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst, 2010, 8(1): 1-9.
10.	Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 156-165.
11.	Hollis C, Sampson S, Simons L, et al. Identifying research priorities for digital technology in mental health care: results of the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership. Lancet Psychiatry, 2018, 5(10): 845-854.
12.	Fernandez MA, Arnel L, Gould J, et al. Research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. BMJ open, 2018, 8(10): e023301.
13.	IOM (Institute of Medicine). Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.
14.	杨梦楠, 赵琨, 齐雪然, 等. 利用 CHNRI 方法确定中国卫生政策优先研究问题. 中国卫生政策研究, 2015, 8(1): 74-79.
15.	康晓凤, 吕蓉, 张方圆, 等. 《成人急性心力衰竭护理实践指南》优先主题的确定. 中国护理管理, 2016, 16(9): 1191-1195.
16.	Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, et al. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy, 2009, 91(3): 219-228.
17.	李伦, 杨克虎, 田金徽, 等. 一种新的证据总结方法—证据图简介. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2011, 6(3): 230-232.
18.	Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, et al. The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011, 11(1): 92.

1. 张晓雨, 商洪才. 近十年国内中医药临床研究发展现状及存在的问题. 中医杂志, 2018, 59(21): 1808-1811.
2. 赵一鸣, 曾琳, 李楠. 临床研究的四个基本特征. 中华医学杂志, 2012, 92(36): 2521-2523.
3. Food and Drug Administration. Clinical research versus medical treatment. Available at: https://www.fda.gov/ForPatients/ClinicalTrials/ClinicalvsMedical/ucm20041761.htm. 2018-3-22/2018-9-25.
4. “九五”以来中医药学科发展综合报告四、中医药学科优先领域与发展方向. “九五”以来中医药学科发展报告, 2008.
5. Switzerland WGOPS. Priority setting for health research: lessons from developing countries. Health Policy Plan, 2000, 15(2): 130-136.
6. Okello D, Chongtrakul P. A manual for research priority setting using the ENHR strategy. In Council on Health Research for Development (COHRED), 2000.
7. Bryant J, Sanson-Fisher R, Walsh J, et al. Health research priority setting in selected high income countries: a narrative review of methods used and recommendations for future practice. Cost Eff Resour Alloc, 2014, 12: 23.
8. Sibbald SL, Singer PA, Upshur R, et al. Priority setting: what constitutes success? A conceptual framework for successful priority setting. BMC Health Serv Res, 2009, 9(1): 1-12.
9. Viergever RF, Olifson S, Ghaffar A, et al. A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice. Health Res Policy Syst, 2010, 8(1): 1-9.
10. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, et al. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet, 2014, 383(9912): 156-165.
11. Hollis C, Sampson S, Simons L, et al. Identifying research priorities for digital technology in mental health care: results of the James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership. Lancet Psychiatry, 2018, 5(10): 845-854.
12. Fernandez MA, Arnel L, Gould J, et al. Research priorities in fragility fractures of the lower limb and pelvis: a UK priority setting partnership with the James Lind Alliance. BMJ open, 2018, 8(10): e023301.
13. IOM (Institute of Medicine). Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2009.
14. 杨梦楠, 赵琨, 齐雪然, 等. 利用 CHNRI 方法确定中国卫生政策优先研究问题. 中国卫生政策研究, 2015, 8(1): 74-79.
15. 康晓凤, 吕蓉, 张方圆, 等. 《成人急性心力衰竭护理实践指南》优先主题的确定. 中国护理管理, 2016, 16(9): 1191-1195.
16. Mitton C, Smith N, Peacock S, et al. Public participation in health care priority setting: A scoping review. Health Policy, 2009, 91(3): 219-228.
17. 李伦, 杨克虎, 田金徽, 等. 一种新的证据总结方法—证据图简介. 中国循证儿科杂志, 2011, 6(3): 230-232.
18. Bragge P, Clavisi O, Turner T, et al. The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2011, 11(1): 92.

Previous Article
A brief introduction of evaluation for medical consortium in China and abroad

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Clinical research priority setting for traditional Chinese medicine

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content