Methodologically weak systematic review of Chinese herbal medicine for diabetic peripheral neuropathy calls for more rigorous trials

Ref ID	223
First Author	B. Wider
Journal	FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES
Year Of Publishing	2013
URL	https://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&CSC=Y&NEWS=N&PAGE=fulltext&D=emed14&AN=369553145
Keywords	Complimentary & Alternative Heterogeneity Pre-specification Low reporting quality Searching
Problem(s)	Intervention not described / defined Lack of prespecification in eligibility criteria Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity Individual study characteristics not reported sufficiently Errors or omissions in search strategy
Number of systematic reviews included	1
Summary of Findings	The authors highlight that in this one systematic review of Chinese herbal medicine, results from 15 different interventions were pooled into a meta-analysis, ignoring key clinical heterogeneity in the interventions. The authors also highlight that it is not clear how the studies included in the review were selected. Key data about patient characteristics and randomisation in the included trials are missing. Outcome measures are not defined. The search strategy was also too vague to encompass all included interventions and therefore relevant studies may have been missed.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?