ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022
Dissemination of Acupuncture-Moxibustion Clinical Practice Guidelines among Clinical Practitioners: A Systematic Review of Quality Assessment Studies.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are authoritative medical recommendations developed by evaluating and integrating acupuncture-related evidence. However, their synthesis and dissemination are not integrated, and clinical practitioners require more credible effective evidence. The study aim was to systematically review problems disseminating acupuncture clinical practice guidelines to clinical practitioners, to facilitate evidence dissemination. This systematic review included searches of PubMed, EBSCO, Web of Science, and four major Chinese electronic databases (CNKI, VIP, Wanfang Database, and SinoMed) from inception to October 26, 2021. Two independent reviewers screened the literature, extracted information, and evaluated the quality of included studies. A systematic review was subsequently performed. Eleven studies were reviewed: nine (81.8%) cross-sectional surveys and two (18.2%) systematic reviews. The evaluated clinical practice guidelines differed across studies; seven studies (63.6%) evaluated guidelines for a specific disease, one (9.1%) evaluated guidelines for acupuncture therapies (e.g., moxibustion and fire acupuncture), one (9.1%) evaluated US acupuncture guidelines and recommendations, and two (18.2%) did not describe the guideline content. The included studies used different evaluation indicators. Guideline dissemination problems included lack of guideline standardization, unclear target population, mismatch between guidelines and application environment, lack of reliable health economics evaluation, poor quality content of the recommendations, lack of linkage between recommendations and evidence, and disassociation of recommendations from clinical practice et al. The development and publishing of credible acupuncture clinical practice guidelines is urgently needed to improve the usability of guidelines and standardize and disseminate tools for analysing information to clinical practitioners and to help the domestic and international acupuncture community to apply evidence to practice. Recommendations for promoting the dissemination of acupuncture clinical practice guidelines are to define clinical events suitable for the target population, to develop recommendations relevant to clinical practice, to improve the evidence evaluation index system, and to further standardize the method and process of formulating guidelines.
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.