ArticleBMC pediatrics2002
Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine.
Article in BMC pediatrics, 2002. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
32 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The management strategies of cancer-associated anorexia: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2018Pooled it
- Quality of reporting of randomised controlled trials of herbal interventions in ASEAN Plus Six Countries: a systematic review.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Assessing the robustness of vascular surgery meta-analyses using the Fragility Index: a cross-sectional study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- The Role of Tourism in Enhancing Domains of Health for Seniors: A Scoping Review.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of Iran · 2025Review
- Value of preclinical systematic reviews and meta-analyses in pediatric research.Pediatric research · 2024Article
- A methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of antidepressants effect on low back pain using updated AMSTAR.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Meta-Review on the Effectiveness of Classroom-Based Psychological Interventions Aimed at Improving Student Mental Health and Well-Being, and Preventing Mental Illness.The journal of primary prevention · 2019Review
- Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.Systematic reviews · 2017Review
- Do systematic reviews on pediatric topics need special methodological considerations?BMC pediatrics · 2017Article
- Article
- The Role of Salivary Neuropeptides in Pediatrics: Potential Biomarkers for Integrated Therapies.European journal of integrative medicine · 2015Article
- Reporting Quality Assessment of Randomized Controlled Trials Published in Nephrology Urology Monthly Journal.Nephro-urology monthly · 2015Review
- A systematic scoping review of adherence to reporting guidelines in health care literature.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2013Article
- Methodological and ethical quality of randomized controlled clinical trials in gastrointestinal surgery.Journal of gastrointestinal surgery : official journal of the Society for Surgery of the Alimentary Tract · 2012Article
- Randomized Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (1997-2007): An Assessment of Reporting Quality with a CONSORT- and STRICTA-Based Instrument.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2011Article
- Searching for controlled trials of complementary and alternative medicine: a comparison of 15 databases.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2011Article
- Quality of systematic reviews of observational nontherapeutic studies.Preventing chronic disease · 2010Article
- Chiropractic care for paediatric and adolescent Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder: A systematic review.Chiropractic & osteopathy · 2010Article
- The quality of meta-analyses of genetic association studies: a review with recommendations.American journal of epidemiology · 2009Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo examine the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews in the pediatric population. We also examined whether there were differences in the quality of reports of a subset of CAM reviews compared to reviews using conventional interventions.
methodsWe assessed the quality of reports of 47 CAM systematic reviews and 19 reviews evaluating a conventional intervention. The quality of each report was assessed using a validated 10-point scale.
resultsAuthors were particularly good at reporting: eligibility criteria for including primary studies, combining the primary studies for quantitative analysis appropriately, and basing their conclusions on the data included in the review. Reviewers were weak in reporting: how they avoided bias in the selection of primary studies, and how they evaluated the validity of the primary studies. Overall the reports achieved 43% (median = 3) of their maximum possible total score. The overall quality of reporting was similar for CAM reviews and conventional therapy ones.
conclusionsEvidence based health care continues to make important contributions to the well being of children. To ensure the pediatric community can maximize the potential use of these interventions, it is important to ensure that systematic reviews are conducted and reported at the highest possible quality. Such reviews will be of benefit to a broad spectrum of interested stakeholders.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.