A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions
Open Access
- 30 April 2020
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Springer Science and Business Media LLC in Systematic Reviews
- Vol. 9 (1), 1-25
- https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-020-01328-3
Abstract
Network meta-analysis (NMA) has rapidly grown in use during the past decade for the comparison of healthcare interventions. While its general use in the comparison of conventional medicines has been studied previously, to our awareness, its use to assess complementary and alternative medicines (CAM) has not been studied. A scoping review of the literature was performed to identify systematic reviews incorporating NMAs involving one or more CAM interventions. An information specialist executed a multi-database search (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane), and two reviewers performed study selection and data collection. Information on publication characteristics, diseases studied, interventions compared, reporting transparency, outcomes assessed, and other parameters were extracted from each review. A total of 89 SR/NMAs were included. The largest number of NMAs was conducted in China (39.3%), followed by the United Kingdom (12.4%) and the United States (9.0%). Reviews were published between 2010 and 2018, with the majority published between 2015 and 2018. More than 90 different CAM therapies appeared at least once, and the median number per NMA was 2 (IQR 1–4); 20.2% of reviews consisted of only CAM therapies. Dietary supplements (51.1%) and vitamins and minerals (42.2%) were the most commonly studied therapies, followed by electrical stimulation (31.1%), herbal medicines (24.4%), and acupuncture and related treatments (22.2%). A diverse set of conditions was identified, the most common being various forms of cancer (11.1%), osteoarthritis of the hip/knee (7.8%), and depression (5.9%). Most reviews adequately addressed a majority of the PRISMA NMA extension items; however, there were limitations in indication of an existing review protocol, exploration of network geometry, and exploration of risk of bias across studies, such as publication bias. The use of NMA to assess the effectiveness of CAM interventions is growing rapidly. Efforts to identify priority topics for future CAM-related NMAs and to enhance methods for CAM comparisons with conventional medicine are needed. https://ruor.uottawa.ca/handle/10393/35658Keywords
Funding Information
- National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (R24AT001293)
This publication has 125 references indexed in Scilit:
- Acupuncture and other physical treatments for the relief of pain due to osteoarthritis of the knee: network meta-analysisOsteoarthritis and Cartilage, 2013
- An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)PLOS ONE, 2013
- Pharmacologic interventions for painful diabetic neuropathy: an umbrella systematic review and comparative effectiveness network meta-analysis (Protocol)Systematic Reviews, 2012
- Comparative efficacy of pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions in fibromyalgia syndrome: network meta-analysisAnnals Of The Rheumatic Diseases, 2012
- α‐blockers, antibiotics and anti‐inflammatories have a role in the management of chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndromeBJU International, 2012
- Key Issues in Clinical and Epidemiological Research in Complementary and Alternative Medicine – a Systematic Literature ReviewComplementary Medicine Research, 2012
- Use of complementary and alternative medicine among USA adults with functional limitations: For treatment or general use?Complementary Therapies in Medicine, 2011
- Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Among Adults with Chronic Diseases: United States 2002The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine, 2006
- Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisonsStatistics in Medicine, 2004