Panacea Index Logo

Command Palette

Search for a command to run...

Health technology assessment in traditional and complementary medicine: a scoping review of international activity and examples of acupuncture.

International journal of technology assessment in health care
January 1, 1970
Dan-Dan Ai et al. (5 authors)
Journal ArticleScoping ReviewHuman Study
Study Details

Study Goal

The researchers aimed to construct a practical value framework for traditional non-pharmacological therapies, focusing on acupuncture, by identifying evaluation domains and obstacles.

Results Summary

The study found that acupuncture was evaluated for various conditions, with chronic pain being the most common, and that safety, effectiveness, and economy were commonly adopted evaluation domains. The biggest challenge identified was the scarcity of high-quality clinical evidence.

Population

Not specified (general focus on countries like the UK, Singapore, Canada, the US, and Malaysia).

Effective Dosage

Not mentioned

Duration

Not mentioned

Interactions

None mentioned

Extracted Claims (6)
InterventionDirectionEndpointPopulationDosageImpactClaim #
health technology assessment (HTA)
neutral
healthcare policy decisions
China's healthcare policymakers
-
is a decision-making supportive tool
#1
value assessment framework for Chinese patent medicine (CPM)
neutral
value assessment
research institutions
-
is being adopted and validated widely
#2
acupuncture
neutral
various conditions
United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and Malaysia
-
had HTA evaluation carried out
#3
acupuncture
neutral
chronic pain
-
-
was the most common condition for HTA evaluation
#4
HTA results for acupuncture
neutral
acupuncture reimbursement
UK and Singapore
-
applied to support reimbursement decisions
#5
traditional non-pharmacological therapies
neutral
evaluation
-
-
has the biggest challenge of scarce high-quality clinical evidence
#6
Abstract

BACKGROUND: Traditional therapies are crucial in maintaining and improving human well-being. China's healthcare policymakers are attempting to use health technology assessment (HTA) as a decision-making supportive tool. The value assessment framework for Chinese patent medicine (CPM) has been developed and is being adopted and validated widely by research institutions. Subsequently, the healthcare decision-makers particularly hanker for the value framework of traditional non-pharmacological therapies. METHODS: To construct a practical value framework for traditional non-pharmacological therapies, a scoping review methodology was adopted to identify the evaluation domains and obstacles. A search, screening, and analysis process was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Evidence was retrieved from scientific databases and HTA agencies' websites. RESULTS: The search strategy identified 5 guidelines records and 17 acupuncture HTA reports. By synthesizing the valuable reports of CPM and acupuncture evaluation in representative countries, this study found that Mainland China was promoting the comprehensive value assessment of CPM, whereas the United Kingdom, Singapore, Canada, the United States, and Malaysia had carried out the HTA evaluation of acupuncture for various conditions among which chronic pain was the most common. UK and Singapore applied the HTA results to support acupuncture reimbursement decisions. Three domains, including safety, effectiveness, and economy, were commonly adopted. The identified biggest challenge of evaluating traditional non-pharmacological therapies is the scarce high-quality clinical evidence. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified value domains and issues of traditional therapies, and pointed out future research implications, to promote the development value framework of traditional therapies.

Medical Subject Headings (MeSH)
Technology Assessment, BiomedicalHumansAcupuncture TherapyComplementary TherapiesMedicine, Chinese TraditionalDecision MakingCost-Benefit Analysis
Study Links
Quality Scores
SafetyNot Assessed
Efficacy75/10
Quality80/10
Citation Metrics
Total Citations1
Citations/Year1.0
Research Impact Scores
APT Score0.05
Weight Score1.43
Normalized Score0.66
Related Supplements