TY - JOUR
T1 - The use of pattern differentiation in WHO-registered traditional Chinese medicine trials – A systematic review
AU - Zhang, Xuan
AU - Tian, Ran
AU - Zhao, Chen
AU - Birch, Stephen
AU - Lee, Ju Ah
AU - Alraek, T.
AU - Bovey, Mark
AU - Zaslawski, Christopher
AU - Robinson, Nicola
AU - Kim, Tae Hun
AU - Lee, Myeong Soo
AU - Bian, Zhaoxiang
N1 - Funding Information:
This work was supported by the FSFT Foundation, Hong Kong .
Funding Information:
We would like to thank the funding of this research: FSFT Foundation.
PY - 2019/9
Y1 - 2019/9
N2 - Introduction: Pattern differentiation is a critical component for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) diagnosis and treatment. However, the issue of whether pattern differentiation is appropriately applied in TCM interventional trials, including Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) interventions and non-herbal TCM interventions, is unclear. The aim of this study was to i) systematically review the current status of pattern differentiation used in WHO-registered clinical trials for different types of TCM interventions; and ii) provide suggestions for improving the use of pattern differentiation in future clinical trial design. Methods: The World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) database was searched for all TCM interventional trials registered up to 31 December 2017. In this systematic review trials with a TCM pattern differentiation in their design were included. Descriptive statistics were collated to demonstrate the characteristics of pattern differentiation applied for different TCM interventional trials. Results: Among 2955 TCM interventional trials registered during 1999–2017, 376 (12.7%) trials included pattern differentiation. Of 376 trials, the use of pattern differentiation was identified in; –the title (30.6%), objective (50.5%), participants inclusion (100%), outcomes (43.6%) and study background (12.5%). Further, 85.4% reported the specific name of the TCM intervention, 10.6% provided the intervention's targeted pattern, 83.8% reported the specific name of the TCM pattern, 7.2% presented diagnostic criteria for the pattern studied, and 19.1% adopted a pattern-related outcome as primary outcome for evaluation. Conclusion: The reporting and application of pattern differentiation in TCM trials were inadequate and confusing, which was mainly due to lack of clarity regarding study design, objectives, diagnostic criteria and outcomes.
AB - Introduction: Pattern differentiation is a critical component for traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) diagnosis and treatment. However, the issue of whether pattern differentiation is appropriately applied in TCM interventional trials, including Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) interventions and non-herbal TCM interventions, is unclear. The aim of this study was to i) systematically review the current status of pattern differentiation used in WHO-registered clinical trials for different types of TCM interventions; and ii) provide suggestions for improving the use of pattern differentiation in future clinical trial design. Methods: The World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) database was searched for all TCM interventional trials registered up to 31 December 2017. In this systematic review trials with a TCM pattern differentiation in their design were included. Descriptive statistics were collated to demonstrate the characteristics of pattern differentiation applied for different TCM interventional trials. Results: Among 2955 TCM interventional trials registered during 1999–2017, 376 (12.7%) trials included pattern differentiation. Of 376 trials, the use of pattern differentiation was identified in; –the title (30.6%), objective (50.5%), participants inclusion (100%), outcomes (43.6%) and study background (12.5%). Further, 85.4% reported the specific name of the TCM intervention, 10.6% provided the intervention's targeted pattern, 83.8% reported the specific name of the TCM pattern, 7.2% presented diagnostic criteria for the pattern studied, and 19.1% adopted a pattern-related outcome as primary outcome for evaluation. Conclusion: The reporting and application of pattern differentiation in TCM trials were inadequate and confusing, which was mainly due to lack of clarity regarding study design, objectives, diagnostic criteria and outcomes.
KW - Chinese medicine interventions
KW - Clinical trial registration
KW - Pattern differentiation
KW - Systematic review
KW - Traditional Chinese medicine
KW - WHO registries
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85069939205&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.100945
DO - 10.1016/j.eujim.2019.100945
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:85069939205
SN - 1876-3820
VL - 30
JO - European Journal of Integrative Medicine
JF - European Journal of Integrative Medicine
M1 - 100945
ER -