| Title |
Consensus-based recommendations for case report in Chinese medicine (CARC)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine, January 2016
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s11655-015-2121-6 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Shu-fei Fu, Chung-wah Cheng, Li Zhang, Linda Li-dan Zhong, Wai Kun, Jia Lin, Bo-li Zhang, Yong-yan Wang, Hong-cai Shang, Zhao-xiang Bian |
| Abstract |
Case reports are valuable clinical evidence in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). However, the general reporting quality is suboptimal. A working group comprising 20 members was set up to develop systematic recommendations on case report in Chinese medicine (CARC). The working group (CARC group) developed a primary checklist based on reviewing the general reporting quality of case reports in TCM and thorough internal discussion. Two-round consensus process had been carried out among clinical experts, evidence-based medicine methodologists, medical journal editors and clinical practitioners with designated questionnaire embedded with the primary checklist. In total, 118 participants from 17 provinces of China and Korea completed the questionnaires. Their feedback was analyzed and discussed by the CARC group. The checklist was amended accordingly, and the final version, comprising 16-item, is presented here. Under the framework of CARC recommendations, the reporting quality of case reports in TCM can be improved. |
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 % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 19 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 19 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 4 | 21% |
| Other | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 11% |
| Student > Bachelor | 1 | 5% |
| Other | 6 | 32% |
| Unknown | 2 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 11 | 58% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 3 | 16% |
| Unspecified | 1 | 5% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 1 | 5% |
| Unknown | 3 | 16% |
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 27 January 2016.
All research outputs
#18,437,241
of 22,842,950 outputs
Outputs from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#401
of 677 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#284,142
of 393,344 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine
#16
of 22 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,842,950 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 677 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 3.7. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% 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 393,344 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 16th percentile – i.e., 16% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 22 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 13th percentile – i.e., 13% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.