- Framework of problems / Comprehensive
- Redundant / overlapping / duplicated review question; leads to research waste
- Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews of acupuncture, herbal medicines, and homeopathy
|COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE RESEARCH
|Year Of Publishing
Complimentary & Alternative
Low reporting quality
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
|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?
|Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?