|FOCUS ON ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES
|Year Of Publishing
Complimentary & Alternative
Low reporting quality
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
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?