SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
Comprehensive review of Korean Medicine registries 2015-2023.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Despite the increasing popularity of Korean Medicine (KM), its scientific evidence faces scrutiny. Instead of randomized controlled trials, registries are favored to capture the real world of KM practice due to the difficulties associated with proper control and the holistic nature of the KM approach. This review aimed to examine the KM registries in detail, identify the scope and focus of studies within this field, and assess the research trends. Methods: We conducted a comprehensive analysis of KM registries listed in trial registration platforms, covering records from their inception until the end of 2023. The selection criteria aimed to include studies focusing on various interventions related to KM, with data extraction focusing on study characteristics and outcomes measured. The analysis utilized descriptive statistics to summarize the findings. Results: We identified a steady increase in registry studies (2015, one; 2023, seven). Musculoskeletal disorders were most studied (28%), aligning with patients' demand. The involvement of 112 primary clinics and Quality of Life (QOL) as the predominant outcome in 14 (66.7%) registries demonstrates the positive impact on patient well-being and the critical role that primary clinics play in KM practice. Conclusion: Our findings indicate a heightened interest and commitment to evidence-based KM practices. Future Registries should be implemented on a large scale, incorporating long-term follow-up encompassing primary clinics. This approach would enable a comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness and safety of KM interventions, as well as offer valuable insights into the influence of KM on chronic conditions and QOL.
Indexed as
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.