Clinical practice guidelines of Chinese patent medicine in China: A critical review

Objectives

To analyze the methodology, evidence, recommendations, quality, and implementation of traditional Chinese patent medicine (CPM) guidelines.

Methods

We retrieved clinical application guidelines of CPM published from 2019 to 2022. Independent screening and data extraction were performed by two evaluators. The basic information about the guidelines, including evidence and recommendations, were extracted and statistically analyzed. Quality and implementation were evaluated using the Implementation Evaluation Tool and Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation (AGREE) II.

Results

In total, 29 guidelines were analyzed, including 262 recommendations and 2308 references. All the CPM guidelines followed the principle of “evidence as a core, consensus as a supplement, and experience as a reference" and the methods provided by WHO Handbook. An average of 89 references were cited in each guideline and 8 in each recommendation. Randomized controlled trials and systematic reviews constituted 89 % and 0.9 %, respectively, of all references. Low or very low-quality evidence characterized 74.5 % and weak recommendations characterized 83.6 %. Of all recommendations, 13.7 % were based on expert consensus, and 9.5 % of strong recommendations were based on low or very low-quality evidence. The AGREE II scores for each domain were: scope and purpose (79.63 %) and editorial independence (79.27 %), followed by clarity of presentation (72.59 %), stakeholder involvement (69.99 %), rigor of development (53.97 %) and applicability (5.11 %). The implementation quality of most guidelines was either high (44.8 %) or moderate (55.2 %).

Conclusions

The results for CPM guidelines were impressive in terms of methodology, quality, and implementation. However, confidence in CPM recommendations was downgraded by low quality of evidence.