| Ref ID | 110 |
| First Author | X.-Y. Wu |
| Journal | EVIDENCE-BASED COMPLEMENTARY & ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2013 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24223063/ |
| Keywords |
• Language • Author • Cochrane • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Language restriction |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Hong Kong |
| Aim | To assess a sample of Cochrane reviews of traditional Chinese medicine to assess whether Chinese databases were searched. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Of the 80 systematic reviews of traditional Chinese medicine trials randomly selected from the Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 43 (54%) searched Chinese databases and 37 (46%) did not. 15 (35%) of systematic reviews that searched Chinese databases and 12 (32%) of systematic reviews that did not search Chinese databases drew a conclusion that tended to support the efficacy of traditional Chinese medicine. In addition, 41 of the 43 systematic reviews (95%) that searched Chinese databases had included Chinese co-authors, while only 4 (11%) of the 37 systematic reviews that did not search Chinese databases had Chinese co-authors. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 119 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 12666 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |