Introduction to STCM Evidence Synopsis: Promoting best evidence to clinical practice

Over the past decades, the body of evidence in the field of traditional Chinese medicine(TCM), including primary clinical studies, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines, has expanded rapidly, reflecting substantial progress in research capacity, methodological advancement, and evidence generation.[1] However, clinicians are increasingly confronted with an evidence-rich yet time-constrained clinical environment, in which accessing, appraising, synthesizing, and translating relevant evidence into real-time clinical decision-making has become both impractical and challenging.[2–4] Consequently, the potential value of high-quality TCM guidelines and evidence is not fully realized in supporting evidence-based clinical practice and healthcare delivery. This challenge reflects a broader problem in contemporary clinical knowledge systems, that is, how to translate comprehensive and often lengthy evidence documents into concise, clinically actionable information that can be readily applied at the point of care.[5,6] The evidence model proposed by Canadian scholar Professor Brain Haynes provides important theoretical and methodological guidance for the efficient and effective application of evidence in clinical practice.[7,8] Evidence synopses, as concise, structured, and readily accessible summaries, play a central role in reducing cognitive burden, enhancing usability, and accelerating evidence-based practice by transforming complex and heterogeneous evidence into clear, clinically oriented knowledge.[7,8] In response to this structural gap, the STCM Evidence Synopsis series is being launched to establish a standardized mechanism for evidence translation, rather than relying on conventional narrative summary formats. Its core objective is to transform high-quality original research, systematic reviews, and clinical practice guidelines into concise, structured, and clinically actionable synopses that directly support decision-making in real-world settings. A defining feature of this series is its emphasis on the comparative and contextual advantages of TCM. It prioritizes diseases and clinical scenarios in which TCM demonstrates recognized strengths, as well as advantageous stages of disease and effective treatment strategies. Clinical outcomes are interpreted using both biomedical endpoints and TCM-specific measures, such as syndrome improvement, overall therapeutic efficacy, and the long-term regulation of functional balance. Each STCM Evidence Synopsis article follows a standardized structure (Supplemental Tables S1–S3, https://links.lww.com/STCM/A100). All evidence presented in synopsis format undergoes rigorous methodological quality appraisal using validated assessment instruments. Randomized controlled trials are appraised using risk of bias instrument for use in sysTematic reviews-for randomised controlled trials (ROBUST-RCT),[9] systematic reviews using a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR 2),[10] and clinical practice guidelines using appraisal of guidelines for research & evaluation (AGREE II) adapted for TCM contexts.[11] This standardized quality assessment process ensures the transparency, methodological rigor, and credibility of all evidence incorporated into the STCM Evidence Synopsis. The STCM Evidence Synopsis series is not intended to function as a secondary publication layer, but rather as a structured platform for evidence translation. By positioning synopses as a formal component of the evidence ecosystem, this initiative aims to reduce the gap between knowledge production and clinical application, improve evidence accessibility, and strengthen the clinical impact of high-quality research outputs. Through standardized formats, clear structures, and clinically oriented synthesis, the series seeks to contribute to a more efficient, transparent, and practice-responsive evidence-to-decision pathway within the field of TCM. We welcome feedback from readers and look forward to the continued refinement and evolution of this initiative. Statement of ethics None. Conflict of interest statement Zhaoxiang Bian is an Editorial Board Member of Science of Traditional Chinese Medicine. The article was subject to the journal’s standard procedures. The remaining authors have no conflicts of interest with regard to the content of this report. Funding source This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. Data availability statement All data are provided in the article and its Electronic Supplementary Material. Author contributions Long Ge conceived the idea for the review. Chen Tian drafted the initial manuscript. All authors contributed to revising the manuscript and reviewed and approved the final version.