An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs)

Ref ID 574
First Author L. Turner
Journal PLOS ONE
Year Of Publishing 2013
URL https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053536
Keywords Cochrane
Protocols
Complimentary & Alternative
Risk of bias
Disclosure
Low reporting quality
Low methodological quality
Problem(s) Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported
No registered or published protocol
No quality assessment undertaken or reported
Number of systematic reviews included 349
Summary of Findings Less than 5% of all reviews reported public availability of a review protocol. Reporting methods of quality assessment was low across both systematic review fields. Source of funding was frequently and consistently underreported.
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? Yes