Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41816266›Full record

ReviewIntegrative medicine research2026

Navigating uncertainty in evidence-informed decision-making for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine: An updated critical interpretive review.

Jennifer Hunter, Matthew Leach, Dennis Chang, Myeong Soo Lee, Yutong Fei, Jianping Liu

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Integrative medicine research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jennifer HunterHealth Research Group, Sydney, Australia.
Matthew LeachHealth & Community Services, TAFE SA, Adelaide, Australia.
Dennis ChangNICM Health Research Institute, Western Sydney University, Sydney, Australia.
Myeong Soo LeeKM Science Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon, South Korea.
Yutong FeiCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Jianping LiuCentre for Evidence-Based Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Evidence-informed decision-making (EIDM) presents unique challenges for traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM). To aid decision-making, a critical interpretive review was updated to examine how internationally and nationally endorsed consensus statements on guideline development and policy briefs, along with TCIM-specific recommendations may address these challenges. Methods: The review drew on critical interpretive synthesis and rapid review methods. PubMed, CINAHL and AIMED were searched on 19 January 2024. Single reviewers conducted the screening and extracted descriptive data. Analysis began deductively from the original review themes and developed iteratively. Results: Included were 167 publications. Over the past decade, evidence-to-decision (EtD) frameworks have considered a broader range of modifying factors (e.g., importance of the problem, stakeholder preferences, feasibility, costs, health equity, human rights, social impacts) that may warrant making a stronger recommendation despite lower certainty evidence, and vice versa. Additional strategies proposed by TCIM guideline developers included systematically incorporating multiple evidence sources and developing TCIM extensions for reporting guidelines. Four interrelated themes affirmed the importance of 1) transparent and inclusive decision-making, 2) ensuring the scope and framing of the problem are sensitive to TCIM contexts, 3) using diverse types of evidence in EtD frameworks and when there is evidence uncertainty, and 4) centering equity, including epistemic equity, throughout the EIDM process. Conclusion: Advancing EIDM methodologies specifically for TCIM guideline development and policy can help decision-makers navigate evidence uncertainty to support the appropriate integration of TCIM into global health systems. Protocol registration: International Platform of Registered Systematic Review and Meta-analysis Protocols: INPLASY202510066.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesDecision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineGuidelinesPolicy BriefTraditional medicine

Identifiers

PMID41816266
PMCPMC12974181

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.