• 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文OA文献 >How Comprehensible, Interesting and Relevant is Current Research in Traditional Chinese Medicine for Practitioners?
【2h】

How Comprehensible, Interesting and Relevant is Current Research in Traditional Chinese Medicine for Practitioners?

机译：当前中医对中医的研究有多全面，有趣和相关？

页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Purpose: In traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as in other fields of complementary medicine, research does not necessarily follow the sequence from in vitro studies via phase I to phase IV clinical trials, but all steps are being investigated simultaneously. Here, we aimed to investigate which kinds of studies were interesting and relevant for practitioners.ududMethods: Thirty abstracts from articles on TCM published between April and June 2012 were randomly chosen, including 5 abstracts each of in vitro studies, animal studies, case reports or series, studies with healthy volunteers, trials with patients, or reviews and meta-analyses. Six TCM practitioners (2 female, 5 non-medical, average age 46 years, average practical TCM experience 9 years) rated 10 abstracts each on a 5 point Likert scale (1=very poor to 5=very good) regarding comprehensibility, interest, relevance to practice, information for patients, and promoting reputation of TCM. Average ratings for each group of abstracts were calculated.ududResults: Comprehensibility of the abstracts was generally rated as good. Case reports/series, studies in healthy volunteers and trials with patients were rated interesting by the practitioners (average rating = 3.7, 3.8 and 3.7, respectively). Relevance to practice was mediocre for all types (2.5 to 3.5). In vitro studies and reviews/meta-analyses were not rated useful as information for patients (2.0). Reviews/Meta-analyses were considered negative for the reputation of TCM (2.2).ududConclusions: Practitioners of TCM find abstracts of study results generally comprehensible and interesting. Case reports/series were rated in a similar way as trials with patients. Although TCM is commonly taught by means of case reports, practitioners seemed to value clinical trials. Abstracts of reviews/meta-analyses were rated rather uninformative, which was possibly due to several inconclusive results and the lack of detailed information in these abstracts.
机译：目的：在中药（TCM）中以及在补充医学的其他领域中，研究不一定遵循从体外研究到I期到IV期临床试验的顺序，但是所有步骤正在同时进行研究。 ud ud方法：2012年4月至2012年6月发表的30篇关于中医的文章摘要被随机抽取，其中包括5篇关于体外研究，动物研究，案例报告或系列，与健康志愿者进行的研究，与患者进行的试验或评论和荟萃分析。六位中医从业人员（2名女性，5名非医学专家，平均年龄46岁，平均中医实践经验9年）以5分的李克特量表（1 =非常差至5 =非常好）对10个摘要进行了综合理解，关注，与实践相关，为患者提供信息，并提高中医声誉。计算每组摘要的平均评分。 ud ud结果：摘要的可理解性通常被评为良好。从业者对病例报告/系列，健康志愿者的研究以及对患者的试验进行了有趣的评估（平均分别为3.7、3.8和3.7）。与实践的相关性在所有类型（2.5至3.5）中均中等。没有将体外研究和评价/元分析作为患者的有用信息（2.0）。评论/元分析被认为对中医的声誉不利（2.2）。 ud ud结论：中医的从业者发现研究结果的摘要通常是可理解和有趣的。病例报告/系列的评价与对患者的试验相似。尽管中医通常通过病例报告的方式进行教学，但从业者似乎很重视临床试验。评论/元分析的摘要被评为相当没有信息，这可能是由于一些不确定的结果以及这些摘要中缺乏详细信息所致。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号