Acupuncture for Cancer Related Pain: Protocol for a Pragmatic Randomised Wait-List Controlled Trial

Are Published Cancer Care Trial Protocols With Traditional Chinese Medicine Interventions Concordant With SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018? A Scoping Review on Published Trial Protocols Between 2019 and 2022

BACKGROUND

The SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was created to guide the design and reporting of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) clinical trial protocols. This study aims to investigate the extent of concordance with this guideline in the relevant field of cancer care research.

METHODS

A scoping review of TCM cancer trial protocols published in English and Chinese since January 2019 was conducted. Five major academic databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched. Concordance with the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 was assessed by descriptive analysis.

RESULTS

Fifty-three TCM cancer care trial protocols were identified, comprising 23 acupuncture, 26 Chinese herbal medicine (CHM), and 4 Tai Chi/Qigong (TCQ) interventions. The majority of the checklist items had a low rate of concordance, especially in the reporting of quality control and safety, dosage, TCM diagnostic patterns, possible interactions between Western Medicine and TCM interventions, and TCM-related outcome assessments.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the SPIRIT-TCM Extension 2018 guideline was established through extensive Delphi consultation, there are low rates of concordance between published TCM cancer care clinical trial protocols with the guideline. Further research is necessary to understand the low rate of concordance and how scientific rigors of reporting can be improved in TCM cancer care research.

Mixed methods research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

To update the current characteristics about the scope and quality of mixed methods research (MMR) in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) after nearly 10 years.

METHODS

A 5-stage approach for conducting a scoping review was adopted. Articles published on the top 10 journals in CAM with the highest impact factor in 2020 were screened for MMR. Information of included articles were extracted, and then synthesized to illustrate the current state. Methodological quality was evaluated according to the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool (MMAT) 2018 version.

RESULTS

A total of 55 (55/2991, 2%) articles using mixed methods were retrieved, including 17 medical studies and 38 ethnobotanical studies. We performed an in-depth analysis on the 17 medical studies, which studied cancer, stress, pain, fatigue, exercises, mindfulness intervention, herbal medicine use, art and acupuncture. Thirteen pilot studies applied MMR to evaluate the feasibility of interventions or programs (13/17, 76%); phenomenology was inferred as the most common philosophical assumptions (13/17, 76%); the most applied type of MMR was convergent design (16/17, 94%); integration often took place at integration (12/17, 71%). Among the 16 eligible studies for quality appraisal, majority were rated as good (14/16, 88%), whereas two studies were rated as poorly described. Primarily, a poor rating was due to incomplete reporting of data analysis and citations in qualitative components; lack of confounder controlling and the sampling strategy in quantitative components; poor description of integration and justification for mixed methods. Comparing with the previous review, fewer MMR were published in 2020 in CAM, but the proportion of studies that clearly reported MMR has increased by 4 times (4%→15%).

CONCLUSION

CAM researchers need to realize the benefits that MMR can have on conducting further health care research. Our findings highlight that applying MMR will be helpful to understand the complex dynamics and interdisciplinary nature of complex intervention. In addition, addressing a standardized reporting criteria for MMR is recommended.

Real-World Evidence of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) Treatment on Cancer: A Literature-Based Review

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for evidence-based medicine, they do not always reflect the real condition of patients in the real-world setting, which limits their generalizability and external validity. Real-world evidence (RWE), generated during routine clinical practice, is increasingly important in determining external effectiveness of the tightly controlled conditions of RCTs and is well recognized as a valuable complement to RCTs by regulatory bodies currently. Since it could provide new ideas and methods for clinical efficacy and safety evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) and high-quality evidence support, real-world study (RWS) has received great attention in the field of medicine, especially in the field of TCM. RWS has shown desirable adaptability in the clinical diagnosis and treatment practice of traditional Chinese medicine. Consequently, it is increasingly essential for physicians and researchers to understand how RWE can be used alongside clinical trial data on TCM. Here, we discuss what real-world study is and outline the benefits and limitations of real-world study. Furthermore, using examples from TCM treatment on cancer, including Chinese herbal medicine, acupuncture, moxibustion, integrated TCM and Western medicine treatment, and other treatments, we elaborate how RWE can be used to help inform treatment decisions when doctoring patients with cancer in the clinic.