Table 1 Themes and sub-themes of qualitative research
Themes | Sub-themes |
|---|---|
The problems of "incompatibility" are highlighted | The standardized development, dissemination and implementation of clinical practice guidelines of organic integration of TCM and WM is the only way for the real organic integration to be achieved The current situation is a simple superposition or stack of evidence and recommendations of WM and TCM |
Objectives of organic integration of TCM and WM | The organic integration of TCM and WM is based on integrated TCM and WM, but goes further and lays more emphasis on the complementary advantages of TCM and WM in the interpretation of mechanisms, clinical research and clinical practice The guideline for organic integration of TCM and WM should not be a simple superposition or stack of evidence and recommendations of WM and TCM. It is the deep organic integration of the advantages of TCM and WM based on the clinical diagnosis and treatment pathways |
Presentation of clinical problems in Clinical practice guidelines of organic integration of TCM and WM | The presentation of clinical problems in the development of clinical practice guidelines for integration of TCM and WM does not reflect the problems that urgently need to be solved in the process of integrated TCM and WM diagnosis and treatment practice, so the guidelines are not instructive to clinical practice The clinical problems were not specific and clear enough to guide the literature search at the later stage |
Selection and presentation of GQESRs in the guideline | Controversy over use of different GQESRs within a single guideline Paying attention to clear and understandable labeling systems for two grading systems |
Traditional evidence for TCM– ancient literature | Controversy over the use of ancient literature as evidence in the guideline Multi-dimensional evaluation of evidence from ancient literature |
Traditional evidence for TCM– expert experience | Confirmed expert experience used as evidence in the guideline Multi-dimensional evaluation of evidence from expert experience |