Search

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) synthesise the best evidence of effectiveness and safety on Chinese herbal medicine (CHM). Decision-making should be supported by the high-quality evidence of prudently conducted SRs, but the trustworthiness of conclusions may be limited by poor methodological rigour., Methods: This survey aimed to examine the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on CHM published during January 2018 to March 2020. We conducted literature search in Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, MEDLINE via Ovid, and EMBASE via Ovid. Eligible SRs must be in Chinese or English with at least one meta-analysis on the treatment effect of any CHM documented in the 2015 Chinese Pharmacopoeia. Two reviewers extracted the bibliographical characteristics of SRs and appraised their methodological quality using AMSTAR 2 (Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews 2). The associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality were investigated using Kruskal-Wallis tests and Spearman's rank correlation coefficients., Results: We sampled and appraised one hundred forty-eight SRs. Overall, one (0.7%) was of high methodological quality; zero (0%), four (2.7%), and one-hundred forty-three (96.6%) SRs were of moderate, low, and critically-low quality. Only thirteen SRs (8.8%) provided a pre-defined protocol; none (0%) provided justifications for including particular primary study designs; six (4.1%) conducted a comprehensive literature search; two (1.4%) provided a list of excluded studies; nine (6.1%) undertook meta-analysis with appropriate methods; and seven (4.7%) reported funding sources of included primary studies. Cochrane reviews had higher overall quality than non-Cochrane reviews (P < 0.001). SRs with European funding support were less likely to have critically-low quality when compared with their counterparts (P = 0.020). SRs conducted by more authors (r s  = 0.23; P = 0.006) and published in higher impact factor journals (r s  = 0.20; P = 0.044) were associated with higher methodological quality., Conclusions: Our results indicated that the methodological quality of SRs on CHM is low. Future authors should enhance the methodological quality through registering a priori protocols, justifying selection of study designs, conducting comprehensive literature search, providing a list of excluded studies with rationales, using appropriate method for meta-analyses, and reporting funding sources among primary studies., (© 2022. The Author(s).)

Background: In response to the World Health Organization's recommendation, policy makers have been adopting evidence-based healthcare approach to promote the development of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) into Hong Kong's health system. Disseminating synopses of clinical evidence from systematic reviews or randomized trials is regarded as a potentially effective strategy to promote evidence uptake. The study aimed to identify barriers and facilitators to implementing this strategy among Hong Kong Chinese medicine practitioners (CMPs)., Methods: Twenty-five CMPs aged under 45 years and trained in Hong Kong after reunification with China in 1997 were interviewed individually. Four clinical evidence synopses of randomized trials and systematic reviews on Chinese medicine interventions were presented, and CMPs were asked to comment on their applicability in routine practice. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was applied to guide interview and analysis., Results: The barriers included: i) CMPs' perceived difficulties in applying complex evidence in decision-making and ii) inadequate training and limited consultation time. The facilitators were i) availability of publicly accessible and user-friendly synopses, ii) formation of community of evidence-based practice among CMPs with input from key opinion leaders, iii) opportunity for interprofessional collaborations with conventional healthcare providers, and iv) patients' demand for evidence-based clinical advice. Besides, i) CMPs' knowledge and beliefs in evidence-based healthcare approach, ii) presentations of evidence-based information in the synopses, and iii) clinical decision making as influenced by quality of evidence reported acted as both barriers and facilitators., Conclusions: This CFIR-based qualitative study investigated how the World Health Organization recommendation of promoting evidence use in routine practice was perceived by CMPs trained in Hong Kong after reunification with China in 1997. Key barriers and facilitators to applying evidence were identified. Such results will inform tailoring of implementation strategies for promoting evidence uptake, in the context of a well-developed health system dominated by conventional medicine., (© 2021. The Author(s).)