Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews of acupuncture, herbal medicines, and homeopathy

Ref ID 767
First Author K. Linde
Year Of Publishing 2003
Keywords Complimentary & Alternative
Low reporting quality
Overlapping reviews/redundancy
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
Number of systematic reviews included 115
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.
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? No