| 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 • Low methodological quality • Low reporting quality • Protocols • Disclosure • Risk of bias • Complementary & Alternative |
| 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) |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Canada |
| Aim | To compare epidemiological, descriptive and reporting characteristics of CAM-related systematic reviews to a control sample of conventional non-CAM reviews. CAM-related non-Cochrane reviews were also compared to conventional non-Cochrane reviews |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| 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. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 349 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 1926 |