| Ref ID | 566 |
| First Author | J. Hu |
| Journal | PLOS ONE |
| Year Of Publishing | 2011 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22174870/ |
| Keywords |
• Cochrane • Heterogeneity • Low reporting quality • Low methodological quality • Complementary & Alternative |
| Problem(s) |
• Weaknesses identified in some Cochrane reviews • Inadequate analysis of heterogeneity • Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE) |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | China |
| Checklists |
• OQAQ |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicines published in the Cochrane Library in 2010using OQAQ. |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | 70% of included reviews were too broad in terms of combining multiple interventions such as herbs or preparations into the synthesis. Merging a heterogeneous range of interventions make the comprehensiveness of the review's literature searches more unlikely. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 58 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 278 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |