Objective To summarize the current studies of the core outcome set of traditional Chinese medicine (COS-TCM) and analyze their possible problems. Methods The CNKI, WanFang Data, VIP, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases were electronically searched to collect studies from inception to April 18, 2023. The relevant characteristics of the included studies were extracted, and the development steps, stakeholders, and outcomes of COS-TCM were analyzed. Results A total of 28 COS-TCM studies were included. Two studies, only published systematic reviews without providing more information, were excluded from the analysis. Among the 26 studies for analysis, 25 studies (96.15%) used a mixture of methods to develop COS-TCM. Clinicians (n=25) were the most common participants, followed by methodologists and patients. Fifteen studies (57.69%) reported measures to help patients better participate. Twelve consensus definitions were found in the included studies, of which 14 studies' consensus definitions were divided into three levels:"consensus in", "consensus out", and "no consensus". Among the 14 studies that reported the final COS-TCM results, only 4 studies recommended Chinese medicine characteristic outcomes. For the measurement of outcomes, 14 studies (53.85%) made plans for the selection of tools. Conclusion The current COS-TCM research has made some progress, and the common developing methods are roughly the same as those nationally used. However, there are still some problems, such as inadequate and low-transparency reports, lack of TCM characteristic outcomes, and so on. We suggest that future COS-TCM studies should refer to COS-STAP, COS-STAR, COS-STAD, and other international standards as well as emphasize the advantages of TCM during development and reporting so that it can improve the transparency of developing methods, research quality, and the proportion of TCM characteristics of the final COS.
ObjectiveTo evaluate the quality of protocols and reports on the core outcome set of traditional Chinese medicine (COS-TCM), and to provide some evidence for COS-TCM developers to carry out studies and improve the reporting quality and methodological quality during their studies. MethodsLiterature databases in Chinese and English were searched to collect COS-TCM protocols or study reports from inception to April 18, 2023. The Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Reporting (COS-STAR), Core Outcome Set-STAndards for Development (COS-STAD), and Core Outcome Set-STAndardised Protocol Items (COS-STAP) were used to evaluate their reporting and methodological quality. Additionally, the consistency of studies with both published protocols and results was evaluated. ResultsA total of 14 protocols and 14 reports (involving 23 COS-TCM studies) were included. The evaluation of COS-TCM protocols according to the COS-STAP found that the reporting rates of "Stakeholders" (71.4%) and "Missing data" (42.9%) were relatively low. For the reports of COS-TCM, the evaluation based on the COS-STAD found that the reporting rates of "the population (s) covered by the COS" (35.7%) and "care was taken to avoid ambiguity of language used in the list of outcomes" (28.6%) were relatively low. Based on the COS-STAR, the items with low reporting rates were "Protocol Deviation" (7.1%), "Participants" (21.4%), and "Conflicts of interest" (28.6%). Additionally, the consistency evaluation found that there were inconsistencies between protocols and their results, such as the types of research included in the systematic review, the methods of qualitative research, the way of holding consensus meetings, scoring methods, etc. Moreover, only one study reported protocol deviation and reasons for change. ConclusionCOS-TCM studies need to improve their methodological quality and report transparency. When developing COS-TCM, we should pay attention to the characteristics of TCM while basing on international standards. The quality evaluation guidelines and standards of reporting for COS-TCM study need to be developed in the future.
Objective With reference to the method of operationalization of concept in the field of sociology, this study developed a methodological framework for intervention trials of Chinese medicine (CM) under the mode of syndrome dominating disease. Methods First, an operational definition of the syndrome dominating disease research model was clarified to provide the scope and direction of the methodological framework construction. Then a scoping review was conducted to identify the design features of clinical researches under the model to summarize the basic structure and content of the framework; furthermore, in-depth interviews were carried out to collect the views and suggestions of CM experts on this type of study, which added details to the framework. Finally, a survey was conducted to evaluate the rationality and feasibility of the methodological framework. Results A total of 74 studies were included and 12 CM experts were interviewed, and the results of the literature and interview study were synthesized to form a preliminary methodological framework. Thirty-two experts participated in the survey and most of them held a positive assessment of the rationality of the framework, then according to the experts’ suggestions, the final methodological framework which was a four-level structure with 25 items was established. Conclusion Following the internationally recognized methods and steps, this study develops a rational and feasible methodological framework for CM trials under the mode of syndrome dominating disease, which can provide references for future studies’ design, implementation and evaluation.