| Ref ID | 767 |
| First Author | K. Linde |
| Journal | COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE RESEARCH |
| Year Of Publishing | 2003 |
| URL | https://mediatum.ub.tum.de/1218525 |
| Keywords |
• Complimentary & Alternative • Overlapping reviews/redundancy • Low reporting quality |
| Problem(s) |
• Failure to define clinically meaningful outcomes • Poor execution of narrative synthesis • Intervention not described / defined • Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste |
| Article Type | Empirical |
| Article Subtype | Cross-sectional survey/Methodological systematic review |
| First Author Country | Germany |
| Aim | To assess the methodological quality (Oxman scale) of systematic reviews of three major complimentary therapies |
| Level of Investigation | Descriptive |
| Summary of Findings | From 115 systematic reviews of complimentary therapies (39 on acupuncture, 58 on herbal medicine, 18 on homeopathy) the methodological quality of reviews was highly variable. Deficiencies were most frequent for the description of the selection process and the summary of the results of primary studies. |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 115 |
| Number of eligible systematic reviews assessed | 115 |
| Treatment impacted | No |
| Treatment impacted description | |
| Interpretation impacted | Not Applicable |
| Interpretation impacted description |