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 • Complimentary & Alternative • Low methodological quality • Low reporting quality • Protocols • Disclosure • Risk of bias
Problem(s)	• Funding or sponsor of systematic review not reported • No registered or published protocol • No quality assessment undertaken or reported • Low reporting or methodological quality (OTHER GUIDANCE)
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?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes