Protocol for a scoping review of traditional medicine research methods, methodologies, frameworks and strategies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The World Health Organization (WHO) has called for the evidence-informed integration of traditional medicine (TM) into health systems. Research rigor requires a good “fit” between research designs and what is being studied. The expectation that TM research fully adheres to biomedical evidentiary norms potentially creates tensions, as TM paradigms have their own distinct features. A scoping review will be conducted to describe and characterize the research approaches used in TM and their paradigmatic alignment with the TM being studied. Methods This scoping review protocol was informed by Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods. This protocol outlines an a priori conceptual framework, provisionally termed “paradigmatic alignment.” The review will include all populations, TM types, research approaches (i.e., methods, methodologies, frameworks, strategies), cultural contexts, and health care settings. Up to 38 English and non-English language databases will be searched sequentially for both published and gray literature until reaching data saturation across relevant concepts and contexts. Analysis will begin deductively, using a pre-piloted data extraction template to describe the TM research approaches. A basic qualitative content analysis of a sample of evidence sources will explore how research approaches are applied or modified to align with the TM therapeutic paradigm, and the manner in which they co-exist, contrast, complement or align with established biomedical research approaches. The findings will be narrated and summarized in charting tables and figures. The review will be reported according to the PRISMA scoping review extension. Consultative engagement with knowledge users across all review stages is planned. Discussion Aligned with the principle of Two-Eyed Seeing (Etuaptmumk), wherein Indigenous/traditional and biomedical knowledges may equitably co-exist, this review promises to advance scholarly insights of critical value in an increasingly pluralistic, globalized world. Clinical trial registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ , identifier INPLASY2023110071.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.210 | 0.289 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.027 | 0.023 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.183 | 0.056 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".