An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)
Open Access
- 14 January 2013
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 8 (1), e53536
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0053536
Abstract
Systematic reviews (SRs) are abundant. The optimal reporting of SRs is critical to enable clinicians to use their findings to make informed treatment decisions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are widely used therefore it is critical that conduct and reporting of systematic research in this field be of high quality. Here, methodological and reporting characteristics of a sample of CAM-related SRs and a sample of control SRs are evaluated and compared. MEDLINE® was searched to identify non-Cochrane SRs indexed from January 2010 to May 2011. Control SRs were retrieved and a search filter was used to identify CAM SRs. Citations were screened and publications that met a pre-specified definition of a SR were included. Pre-designed, standardized data extraction forms were developed to capture reporting and methodological characteristics of the included reviews. Where appropriate, samples were compared descriptively. A total of 349 SRs were identified, of which 174 were CAM-related SRs and 175 were conventional SRs. We compared 131 CAM-related non-Cochrane SRs to the 175 conventional non-Cochrane reviews. Fifty-seven percent (75/131) of CAM SRs specified a primary outcome compared to 21% (37/175) of conventional sample reviews. Reporting of publication bias occurred in less than 5% (6/131) of the CAM sample versus 46% (80/175) of the conventional sample of SRs. Source of funding was frequently and consistently under-reported. Less than 5% (11/306) of all SRs reported public availability of a review protocol. The two samples of reviews exhibited different strengths and weaknesses. In some cases there were consistencies across items which indicate the need for continued improvements in reporting for all SR reports. We advise authors to utilise the PRISMA Statement or other SR guidance when reporting SRs.Keywords
This publication has 44 references indexed in Scilit:
- Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2011
- Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?PLoS Medicine, 2010
- Updating Systematic Reviews: An International SurveyPLOS ONE, 2010
- The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and ElaborationPLoS Medicine, 2009
- The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studiesJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2008
- Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic ReviewsPLoS Medicine, 2007
- The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use among the general population: a systematic review of the literatureComplementary Therapies in Medicine, 2000
- Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?Controlled Clinical Trials, 1996
- Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trialsJama-Journal Of The American Medical Association, 1995