Designing delivery models of traditional and complementary medicine services: a review of international experiences.

BACKGROUND: The World Health Organization advocates integration of traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) into the conventional health services delivery system. Integrating quality services in a patient-centred manner faces substantial challenges when T&CM is delivered within a health system dominated by conventional medicine. This review has synthesized international experiences of integration strategies across different contexts. SOURCES OF DATA: Publications describing international experiences of delivering T&CM service in conventional healthcare settings were searched. Backward and forward citation chasing was also conducted. AREAS OF AGREEMENT: Capable leaders are crucial in seeking endorsement from stakeholders within the conventional medicine hierarchy and regulatory bodies. However, patient demands for integrative care can be successful as demonstrated by cases included in this review, as can the promotion of the use of T&CM for filling effectiveness gaps in conventional medicine. Safeguarding quality and safety of the services is a priority. AREAS OF CONTROVERSY: Different referral mechanisms between conventional and T&CM practitioners suit different contexts, but at a minimum, general guideline on responsibilities across the two professionals is required. Evidence-based condition-specific referral protocols with detailed integrative treatment planning are gaining in popularity. GROWING POINTS: Interprofessional education is critical to establishing mutual trust and understanding between conventional clinicians and T&CM practitioners. Interprofessional communication is key to a successful collaboration, which can be strengthened by patient chart sharing, instant information exchange, and dedicated time for face-to-face interactions. AREAS TIMELY FOR DEVELOPING RESEARCH: Research is needed on the optimal methods for financing integrated care to ensure equitable access, as well as in remuneration of T&CM practitioners working in integrative healthcare.

Chinese medicine diagnosis and treatment for COVID-2019: Is China ready for implementing a national guideline?

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19 sparked a pandemic in December 2019 and is currently posing a huge impact globally. Chinese herbal medicine is incorporated into the Chinese national guideline for COVID-19 management, emphasising the individualisation of herbal treatment guided by pattern differentiation, which is an ICD-11-endorsed approach. However, this was not widely implemented with many provincial governments and hospitals developing their own guideline, suggesting the use of standardised herbal formulae and herbal active ingredients without pattern differentiation. METHODS: Through the case study of COVID-19 guideline implementation, we compared the three approaches of developing Chinese herbal medicine, namely pattern differentiation-guided prescription, standardised herbal formulae, and herbal active ingredients, in terms of their strengths, limitations, and determinants of adoption. RESULTS: Pattern differentiation-guided prescription is the practice style taught in the national syllabus among universities of Traditional Chinese Medicine in China, yet the lack of relevant diagnostic research reduces its reliability and hinders its implementation. Application of standardised herbal formulae is straightforward since the majority of clinical evidence on Chinese herbal medicine is generated using this approach. Nevertheless, it is downplayed by regulatory bodies in certain jurisdictions where the use of pattern differentiation is required in routine practice. Although herbal active ingredients may have clear in vitro therapeutic mechanisms, this may not be translated into real world clinical effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple COVID-19 clinical trials evaluating the effectiveness and safety of Chinese herbal medicine prescribed using one of the three approaches described above are progressing. These results will demonstrate the comparative effectiveness among these approaches. Forthcoming clinical evidence from these trials should inform the updating process of the national guideline, such that its recognition and compliance may be strengthened. For longer-term development Chinese herbal medicine, serious investment for establishing high-quality clinical research infrastructure is urgently needed.

Highlights of traditional Chinese medicine frontline expert advice in the China national guideline for COVID-19.

INTRODUCTION: The World Health Organization declared the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) as a pandemic on 11 March 2020, after the number of confirmed cases outside China increased 13-fold. As the epicentre of the initial outbreak, China has been updating the National COVID-19 Diagnostic and Treatment Guideline with up-to-date information about the disease. To facilitate the implementation of integrative Chinese-Western Medicine in COVID-19 management, Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) has been recommended in recent editions of the national guideline. METHODS: The national guideline summarised the opinions and frontline experience of medical experts across the country to provide by far the best management for COVID-19. We extracted the case definition and clinical classifications of COVID-19 in China along with relevant TCM treatments cited in the seventh edition of the guideline, with an intent to disseminate practical information to TCM clinicians and researchers around the world. RESULTS: We present the most recent case definition, clinical classifications, and relevant TCM treatments of COVID-19 in accordance with the recommendations in the Chinese guideline. TCM treatments are stratified into two groups based on patients' disease status. Four types of Chinese patent medicines are recommended for suspected COVID-19 cases. Several herbal formulae are recommended for confirmed COVID-19 cases according to their clinical classification and TCM pattern diagnoses. Two herbal formulae are also recommended for rehabilitation of recovering cases. CONCLUSION: To control the waves of COVID-19 outbreak, countries must ensure the adherence of their citizens to local public health measures. Medical professionals should diagnose and treat patients according to up-to-date guidelines. Future evaluation of the outcomes of implementing TCM recommendations will strengthen the evidence base for COVID-19 management for the sake of public health and the internationalisation of TCM.

Methodological quality of systematic reviews on treatments for osteoporosis: A cross-sectional study.

PURPOSE: Systematic reviews (SRs) provide the best evidence on the effectiveness of treatment strategies for osteoporosis. Carefully conducted SRs provide high-quality evidence for supporting decision-making, but the trustworthiness of conclusions can be hampered by limitation in rigor. We aimed to appraise the methodological quality of a representative sample of SRs on osteoporosis treatments in a cross-sectional study. METHODS: Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and PsycINFO were searched for SRs on osteoporotic treatments. AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) 2 was used to evaluate methodological quality of SRs. Associations between bibliographical characteristics and methodological quality ratings were explored using multivariate regression analyses. RESULTS: A total of 101 SRs were appraised. Overall, one (1.0%) was rated "high quality", three (3.0%) were rated "moderate quality", eleven (10.9%) were rated "low quality", and eighty-six (85.1%) were rated "critically low quality". Ninety-nine (98.0%) did not explain study design selection, eighty-five (84.2%) did not provide a list of excluded studies (84.2%), and eighty-five (84.2%) did not report funding sources of included studies. SRs published in 2018 or after were associated with higher overall quality [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 5.48; 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.12-26.89], while SRs focused on pharmacological interventions were associated with lower overall quality [AOR: 0.24; 95% CI: 0.06-0.96]. CONCLUSION: The methodological quality of the included SRs is far from satisfactory. Future reviewers must strengthen rigor by improving literature search comprehensiveness, registering and publishing a priori protocols, and optimising study selection and data extraction. Better transparency in reporting conflicts of interest among reviewers, as well as sources of funding among included primary studies, are also needed.