Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Center, School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Chinese EQUATOR Center, Hong Kong SAR, P. R. China.
Am J Chin Med. 2021;49(6):1275-1296. doi: 10.1142/S0192415X21500610. Epub 2021 Jul 14.
Cross-sectional studies on traditional Chinese medicine (TCM-CSs) have become the most published type of TCM observational study; however, the research scope of current TCM-CSs is unknown. A scoping review of the literature was performed. A descriptive approach to summarize the core study characteristics was prepared, along with structured tables and figures to identify salient points of similarities and differences noted across studies. The reporting quality of TCM-CSs was assessed according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) cross-sectional checklist. Eight databases (Embase, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, AMED, CBM, CNKI, WanFang, and VIP) were systematically searched for TCM-CSs published up until 20 January 2020. The literature screening and evaluating were independently conducted by two researchers. When there was disagreement, a third-party senior researcher made the judgment. A total of 198 TCM-CSs published between 1997 and 2019 were included, 160 English studies and 38 Chinese studies, respectively. More TCM-CSs were published in each successive year. The journal published more TCM-CSs (24) than any other journal. Most TCM-CSs were conducted in mainland China (81, 40.9%), followed by Taiwan, China (44, 22.2%) and HKSAR, China (19, 9.6%). The most commonly used sampling method was purposive sampling (94, 47.5%), following by convenience sampling (60, 30.3%). The research topics can be summarized in four major categories as follows: constitution-related research (11.1%), TCM pattern-related research (18.7%), TCM intervention-related research (55.1%), and others (15.6%). The average sufficient reporting rate of included TCM-CSs according to the STROBE cross-sectional checklist was 45.6%. Papers written in English reported 9 items (items 2, 4, 14a, 16a, 18, 19, 20, 21, and 22) more frequently than papers written in Chinese. The number of TCM-CSs is increasing. Research topics are diverse; however, the reporting quality is unsatisfactory. In particular, TCM-CSs need greater transparency and standardization.
横断面研究已成为中医药观察性研究中最常见的类型；然而，目前中医药横断面研究的研究范围尚不清楚。本研究进行了文献范围界定。采用描述性方法总结核心研究特征，并制作结构化表格和图表，以确定研究之间异同点的显著特征。根据《观察性研究的流行病学报告质量（STROBE）横断面检查表》评估中医药横断面研究的报告质量。系统检索了 8 个数据库（Embase、CENTRAL、MEDLINE、AMED、CBM、CNKI、WanFang 和 VIP）中截至 2020 年 1 月 20 日发表的中医药横断面研究。两名研究人员独立进行文献筛选和评估。当存在分歧时，由第三方资深研究人员进行判断。共纳入 198 篇发表于 1997 年至 2019 年的中医药横断面研究，其中 160 篇英文研究和 38 篇中文研究。每年发表的中医药横断面研究数量不断增加。发表中医药横断面研究最多的期刊是（24 篇）。大多数中医药横断面研究在中国内地（81 篇，40.9%）进行，其次是中国台湾（44 篇，22.2%）和中国香港特别行政区（19 篇，9.6%）。最常用的抽样方法是立意抽样（94 篇，47.5%），其次是方便抽样（60 篇，30.3%）。研究主题可归纳为以下四大类：体质相关研究（11.1%）、中医证型相关研究（18.7%）、中医干预相关研究（55.1%）和其他研究（15.6%）。根据 STROBE 横断面检查表，纳入的中医药横断面研究的充分报告率平均为 45.6%。英文论文比中文论文报告的项目多 9 项（项目 2、4、14a、16a、18、19、20、21 和 22）。中医药横断面研究的数量不断增加，研究主题多样，但报告质量不理想。特别是，中医药横断面研究需要更大的透明度和标准化。
Am J Chin Med. 2021
BMC Complement Med Ther. 2020-11-23
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022-2-1
J Altern Complement Med. 2008-6
Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press). 2023-8-10
Zotero 插件