小儿推拿干预指南与疾病诊疗指南中推拿方案研制与报告质量的比较研究OA

Objective To compare the methodology of the tuina protocols and the quality of tuina reporting in pediatric tuina intervention guidelines and disease diagnosis and treatment guidelines.Methods Based on previous research,a computerized search was conducted in CNKI,WanFang Data,VIP,SinoMed,and PubMed databases and related guideline websites to include publicly available guidelines related to pediatric tuina.The search period was from November 1,2023(the basis of previous research)to May 30,2025.The modified STAR tool was used to evaluate the methodology of the included guidelines,and the STRICTO-TM reporting checklist was used to evaluate the quality of tuina reporting.Results A total of 4 pediatric tuina intervention guidelines and 22 disease diagnosis and treatment guidelines were included in this study.According to the ICD-11 disease classification,they involved 14 disease system classifications and 23 pediatric diseases,including 5(23.1%)digestive system diseases,5(23.1%)respiratory system diseases,and 4(15.4%)mental,behavioral or neurodevelopmental disorders.25 guidelines(96.2%)were funded.The SATR scores of the tuina therapy recommendations in the two groups of guidelines showed that in the evidence domain item 25(providing a summary table of evidence or specific grading basis for each recommendation)and the recommendation domain,item 31(clearly identifying recommendations)and item 33(explaining each recommendation),the STAR scores of the pediatric tuina intervention guidelines were higher than those of the disease diagnosis and treatment guidelines,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05);in the remaining domains and items,there were no statistically significant differences in the STAR scores between the two groups of guidelines(P>0.05).The STRICTO-TM evaluation result of the tuina protocol reporting in the two groups of guidelines showed that 25 guidelines(96.1%)detailed the selection of acupoints,with only 1 guideline not mentioning the selection of acupoints.Neither group of guidelines reported the patient's posture during the operation or the guidance provided to the patient or their family before the operation.In terms of medium application,participant feedback,other interventions,and the background of the therapist,the overall reporting in both groups of guidelines was poor.In terms of intervention protocols and preventive measures,the pediatric tuina intervention guidelines were superior to the disease diagnosis and treatment guidelines,and the differences were statistically significant(P<0.05).Conclusion Both groups of guidelines have systematic deficiencies,such as the lack of standardized positions and insufficient description of the qualifications of the therapists,and most guidelines ignore the integration of non-evidence factors in the consensus stage and the application of the PICO framework.