↓ Skip to main content

Traditional East Asian medicine: How to understand and approach diagnostic findings and patterns in a modern scientific framework?

Overview of attention for article published in Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, May 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
Title
Traditional East Asian medicine: How to understand and approach diagnostic findings and patterns in a modern scientific framework?
Published in
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, May 2014
DOI 10.1007/s11655-014-1809-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Birch, Terje Alraek

Abstract

Research into the diagnostic methods and patterns of traditional East Asian medical (TEAM) systems of practice such as acupuncture and herbal medicine face certain challenges due to the nature of thinking in TEAM and the subjective basis of judgments made in practice. The TEAM-based diagnosis can take into account various findings and signs such as the appearance of the tongue, palpable qualities of the radial pulses, palpable qualities and findings on the abdomen, the complexion of the patient and so on. Both diagnostic findings and the patterns of diagnosis cannot be assumed to have objective bases or to be causally related to the complaints of the patient. However, the diagnoses of TEAM based acupuncture and herbal medicine have tended to look at pictures of the whole patient and rather than focus on a particular symptom, they have looked across a myriad of signs and symptoms to decide or identify the 'pattern' of diagnosis according to the theory in question. Although open for selective and subjective biases each diagnosis pattern always comes with a prescribed treatment tailored to the pattern. Further, the same research requirements needed for the validation of the diagnoses are needed also for these clinical observations and judgments. Hence, it is necessary, albeit challenging for research on TEAM diagnoses to first address these issues before proceeding to more complex investigations such as the development of instruments for making diagnostic observations, instruments for forming diagnostic conclusions or studies investigating the physiological bases of the diagnostic patterns. Preliminary work has started and instruments have been made, but we suggest that any instrumentation must necessarily be first validated by matching of the calibrated or scaled observations or judgments to observations made and agreed upon by relevant experts. Reliability of all observations and judgments are needed before any other tool, technology or more advanced approach can proceed and also whenever the natural system of diagnosis-treatment is applied in clinical trials. In this paper the authors highlight the core problems and describe a step wise process for addressing them.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 18 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 3 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Researcher 2 11%
Professor 2 11%
Student > Master 2 11%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 5 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 44%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 6%
Psychology 1 6%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 30 December 2019.
All research outputs
#14,797,632
of 22,783,848 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#269
of 675 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#128,369
of 227,810 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#3
of 5 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,783,848 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 675 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its peers.
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 227,810 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 5 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.