Source & Selection

Only peer reviewed randomized trials and systematic reviews published in journals indexed on MEDLINE, EMBASE and CENTRAL were included.

Writing & Evidence Grading

Although reports of randomized trials and systematic reviews are readily available, existing implementation research suggests that application their results in decision-making is suboptimal1. Searching, identifying and retrieving evidence-based resources can be time-consuming, and it is identified as an obstacle to answering clinical questions for busy clinicians2. User friendly synopses of randomized trials and systematic reviews are found to be effective in promoting the uptake of evidence on effectiveness and safety among healthcare professionals3, and our Portal aims to translate this finding to the field of Integrative Medicine. Quality of evidence reported in each synopsis is assessed using the Chinese and Integrative Medicine Evidence RAting System (CHIMERAS), which classify quality of evidence from very high to very low.

For more information about CHIMERAS, please refer to: Chung, V. C., Wu, X. Y., Ziea, E. T., Ng, B. F., Wong, S. Y., & Wu, J. C. (2015). Assessing internal validity of clinical evidence on effectiveness of CHinese and integrative medicine: Proposed framework for a CHinese and Integrative Medicine Evidence RAting System (CHIMERAS). European Journal of Integrative Medicine, 7(4), 332-341.

 

References

1 - Wallace, John, Bosah Nwosu, and Mike Clarke. "Barriers to the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a systematic review of decision makers’ perceptions." BMJ open 2.5 (2012): e001220.

2 - Coumou, Herma CH, and Frans J. Meijman. "How do primary care physicians seek answers to clinical questions? A literature review IRP." Journal of the Medical Library Association 94.1 (2006): 55.

3 - Alper, Brian S., and R. Brian Haynes. "EBHC pyramid 5.0 for accessing preappraised evidence and guidance." Evidence Based Medicine 21.4 (2016): 123-125.