Skip to main content
Log in

Quality Evaluation and Reporting Specification for Real-World Studies of Traditional Chinese Medicine

  • Regulation and Guideline
  • Published:
Chinese Journal of Integrative Medicine Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In recent years, the real-world studies (RWS) have attracted extensive attention, and the real-world evidence (RWE) has been accepted to support the drug development in China and abroad. However, there is still a lack of standards for the evaluation of the quality of RWE. It is necessary to formulate a quality evaluation and reporting specification for RWE especially in traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). To this end, under the guidance of China Association of Chinese Medicine, the Quality Evaluation and Reporting Specification for Real-World Evidence of Traditional Chinese Medicine (QUERST) Group, including 24 experts (clinical epidemiologists, clinicians, pharmacologists, ethical reviewer and statisticians), was established to develop the specification. This specification contains the listing of classification of RWS design and RWE, the general principles and methods of RWE quality evaluation (26 tools or scales), 25 types of bias in RWS, the special considerations in evaluating the quality of RWE of TCM, and the 19 reporting standards of RWE. This specification aims to propose the quality evaluation principles and key points of RWE, and provide guidance for the proper use of RWE in the development of TCM new drugs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Wang MH, Zhao Y, Deng YZ, Xue FB, Xie HT, Yao C. Comparative study on policies, regulations and guiding principles for the application of real-world data/real-world evidence. Chin J Clin Pharmacol Therapeut (Chin) 2020;25:878–889.

    Google Scholar 

  2. U.S. Government. 21st Centruy Cures Act. (2016-12-13) Accessed October 1, 2021. Available at https://www.Congress.gov/114/plaws/publ255/PLAW-114publ255.pdf

  3. National Medical Products Administration. Guiding principles for real-world evidence supporting drug development and review (testing version). Accessed October 1, 2021. Available at http://www.nmpa.gov.cn/WS04/CL2138/373175.html.

  4. National Medical Products Administration. Special regulations on the registration and administration of traditional Chinese medicine (draft for public comment). Accessed September 6, 2021. Available at https://www.nmpa.gov.cn/xxgk/zhqyj/zhqyjyp/20200430154501315.html

  5. Akobeng AK. Assessing the validity of clinical trials. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr 2008;47:277–282.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Zeng FD, Zheng RY, Zhan SY, eds. Pharmacoepidemiology. 2nd edition. Beijing: China Medical Science and Technology Press;2016:80–87.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Sackett DL. Bias in analytic research. J Chronic Dis 1979;32:51–63.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Parfrey PS, Barrett BJ, eds. Methods in molecular biology. Clinical epidemiology: practice and methods. 2nd edition. NewYork: Humana Press;2015:333–348.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Parfrey PS, Barrett BJ, eds. Clinical epidemiology: practice and methods. 3rd edition. Accessed January 1, 2022. Available at https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-0716-1138-8

  10. Tripepi G, Jager KJ, Dekker FW, Zoccali C. Selection bias and information bias in clinical research. Nephron Clin Pract 2010;115:c94–c99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Suissa S, Dell’Aniello S. Time-related biases in pharmacoepidemiology. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2020;29:1101–1110.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Kyriacou DN, Lewis RJ. Confounding by indication in clinical research. JAMA 2016;316:1818–1819.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Consortia

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yu-tong Fei.

Additional information

QUERST Working Group

FEI Yu-tong, CHAI Qian-yun, GAO Rui, LU Fang, ZI Mingjie, SUN Ming-yue, YANG Zhong-qi, CHEN Da-fang, LIU Jianping, LUO Min-jing, FENG Yu-ting, XIA Ru-yu, WU Da-rong, LIU Shao-nan, LIANG Chang-hao, LI Gao-biao, LI Xun, RONG Hong-guo, JIN Xue-jing, CAO Hui-juan, ZHANG Ying, YANG Hong, XING Jing-li, and WANG Ping

Supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 82074282) and NMPA Key Laboratory for Clinical Research and Evaluation of Traditional Chinese Medicine

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chai, Qy., Fei, Yt., Gao, R. et al. Quality Evaluation and Reporting Specification for Real-World Studies of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Chin. J. Integr. Med. 28, 1059–1062 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-022-3583-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11655-022-3583-y

Keywords

Navigation