| Ref ID |
398 |
| First Author |
B. Pham |
| Journal |
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY |
| Year Of Publishing |
2005 |
| URL |
https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(05)00059-4/fulltext |
| Keywords |
• Complimentary & Alternative
|
| Problem(s) |
• Language restriction
|
| Number of systematic reviews included |
42 |
| Summary of Findings |
For conventional medicine interventions, language-restricted systematic reviews, compared with language-inclusive ones, did not introduce biased results, in terms of estimates of intervention effectiveness.
For complimentary and alternative medicines interventions, however, language-restricted systematic reviews resulted in a 63% smaller protective effect estimate than language inclusive reviews |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of
the results? |
Yes |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? |
Yes |
