| Ref ID | 184 |
| First Author | K. Linde |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY OF MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2003 |
| URL | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC539366/pdf/0960017.pdf |
| Keywords |
• Spin • Error • Reproducibility • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Spin or subjective interpretation of findings • Errors in effect estimate calculations or data synthesis • Methods not described to enable replication |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Aim | To assess the conduct of systematic reviews of herbal medicine, homeopathy and acupuncture published between 1989-2001. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From a total of seventeen review sets consisting of 2–5 overviews addressing the same topics, the sample of primary studies varied by more than 25% in fifteen review sets, and by more than 50% in ten. The most common reason for discrepancies regarding the sample of included studies was differences in inclusion criteria. The authors highlight that for the general reader it is almost impossible to know which differences are relevant. Searches in Medline were sometimes described in sufficient detail to allow a comparison. Instead of or in addition to meta-analysis, results of primary studies were summarized descriptively or in vote counts. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 17 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 17 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |