You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
Practitioners’ perspectives on evaluating treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s12906-017-1746-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Yan-Hong Zhang, Jing Lv, Wei Gao, Jun Li, Ji-Qian Fang, Li-Yun He, Bao-Yan Liu |
| Abstract |
There are no generally accepted standards for evaluation of treatment outcomes in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Pattern differentiation and individual treatments are recognized as the most distinguishing features of TCM. Therefore, how practitioners determine curative effects is an issue worthy of research, though little has been done in this area up to this point. This study examines perceptions of the effectiveness of TCM treatments and the means of evaluating clinical outcomes from the practitioners' perspective. Qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews. A total of nine TCM practitioners from three university-affiliated hospitals and two scientific institutions participated in the interviews in August 2013. Participants reported evaluation of periodical treatment as an important part of the process of individual treatment based on pattern differentiation. Themes included (1) ways of evaluating treatment outcomes; (2) relationships between treatment outcomes and pathological transformation; and (3) distinguishing manifestations of the healing process from true adverse reactions. These considerations helped determine the optional treatment principles for further follow-up. An additional theme emerged related to the characteristics of diagnosis and treatment in TCM. Health professionals considered all of the following as important ways of evaluating TCM treatment outcomes: patients' input and subjective experience, physicians' intake and examination, laboratory tests and medical device measurements. Pathological conditions were determined based on all the above factors, and no single factor determined the effectiveness from the practitioners' perspectives. If the patients felt no significant beneficial effects, then it was necessary to judge the effectiveness from adverse effect. The follow-up measures were usually based on the previous treatment, and physicians' satisfaction with each phase of TCM treatment was a significant factor in the process of making further decisions. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 25% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Bachelor | 3 | 8% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 17 | 43% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 20% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 7 | 18% |
| Social Sciences | 3 | 8% |
| Psychology | 1 | 3% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 45% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 May 2017.
All research outputs
#18,548,834
of 22,973,051 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#2,522
of 3,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#239,010
of 313,770 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#93
of 137 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,973,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,640 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.6. This one is in the 17th percentile – i.e., 17% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 313,770 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 137 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.