Differences in Contents and Formation Methods of Clinical Questions in Chinese and Korean Clinical Practice Guidelines of Acupuncture-Moxibustion: Scoping Review.
10.1007/s11655-023-3641-0
- Author:
Nan-Qi ZHAO
1
;
Ya-Li LIU
2
;
Nan DING
1
;
Jing-Yun YUAN
1
;
Dong-Xiao MOU
1
;
Guo-Feng DONG
1
;
Xin WANG
1
;
Xiao-Dong WU
3
,
4
Author Information
1. Institute of Acupuncture-Moxibustion, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700, China.
2. Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Evidence-based Medicine, Beijing Children's Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, 100045, China.
3. Institute of Acupuncture-Moxibustion, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, 100700, China. wxdtcm@
4. com.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
association of acupuncture-moxibustion;
clinical practice guidelines;
clinical questions;
optimize
- MeSH:
Acupuncture;
Acupuncture Therapy/methods*;
Medicine, Chinese Traditional;
Moxibustion/methods*;
Republic of Korea;
Practice Guidelines as Topic
- From:
Chinese journal of integrative medicine
2023;29(12):1133-1141
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
OBJECTIVE:To analyze the differences in the needs of users and the value orientation of clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) by comparing the contents and formation methods of clinical questions in Chinese and Korean CPGs of acupuncture-moxibustion (Acup-Mox).
METHODS:The full text of CPGs was systematically searched from the official websites of Chinese and Korean traditional medicine societies and Acup-Mox associations, with the topic "Acup-Mox for treating diseases" and the retrieval time up to September 28, 2022. Two researchers screened the CPGs independently, and extracted the guidelines' topics, content, quantity and formation methods of clinical questions. The quantitative data were collected by counting the frequency, and the qualitative data were classified and described by thematic analysis.
RESULTS:A total of 29 guidelines were included in this study, including 20 Chinese guidelines (305 questions) and 9 Korean guidelines (223 questions). The differences lie in the aspects of content and diversity, and formation method. As for content and diversity, Chinese guidelines focused mainly on the questions related to treatment such as the operation of specific intervention (86, 28.2%), efficacy of intervention (78, 25.6%), and also involving questions in diagnosis, prevention, and prognosis. While the clinical questions in Korean guidelines were concentrated to efficacy of intervention (218, 97.8%). As for formation method, in Chinese guidelines, questions were usually collected directly from clinicians, and then determined and optimized by experts. In Korean guidelines, frequently used clinical Acup-Mox interventions would be screened first. Then the expert group would set up corresponding intervention control measures so as to form clinical questions related to treatment efficacy.
CONCLUSIONS:The differences reflect the different needs of clinical practitioners, and the different aims or concepts in developing Acup-Mox guidelines between China and South Korea. Chinese guidelines emphasized promoting operation protocols and techniques of Acup-Mox for practical use, while Korean guidelines emphasized promoting the frequently used clinical intervention therapies. It is speculated that the guidelines from these two countries would play different roles in guiding clinical operation and supporting medical decision. In terms of formation methods of clinical questions, it is suggested to attach importance to optimizing process in formatting clinical questions to improve the clinical applicability of CPGs of Acup-Mox.
