| Ref ID | 281 |
| First Author | S. Y. Alperson |
| Journal | JOURNAL OF ALTERNATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2011 |
| URL | https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/acm.2010.0175 |
| Keywords |
• Risk of bias • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Ignores setting or context of included studies which limits review applicability • Flawed risk of bias undertaken |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Case study |
| First Author Country | United States |
| Aim | To assess two systematic reviews of t’ai chi interventions on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women which have starkly opposing conclusions and to examine how chosen quality rating instruments can impact systematic reviews |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | Two systematic reviews of t’ai chi interventions on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women were found to have starkly opposing conclusions due to the choice of quality appraisal tool. The authors conclude that the use of the Jadad scale in one review was not only inadequate but also inappropriate for reviewing t’ai chi studies, potentially misleading researchers, clinicians and policymakers. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 2 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 2 |
| Treatment impacted | Yes |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Yes |
| Interpretation impacted description | The authors compared the scores from the two quality rating scales used in the discordant systematic reviews with three others. While one of the rating scales (Wayne et al.) showed an agreement of 78% to the other scales (75%, 77% and 85%), the Jadad scale only had a 40% rating. This demonstrates how different inclusion criteria affected the ratings of individual studies and thus which studies were included in the pool of quality studies. The inclusion criteria also ultimately affect the conclusions regarding the effectiveness of one study (Lee et al. 2008). |