Evidence map›Paper›PMID 12519797›Full record

ArticleJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine2003

How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicine.

Klaus Linde, Stefan N Willich

Abstract readComparative Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2003. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 7 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation.International journal of methods in psychiatric research · 2013
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. [Permanent education in health: a review].Revista de saude publica · 2014
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Klaus LindeCentre for Complementary Medicine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II, Technische Universität, Kaiserstrasse 9, 80801 München, Germany. Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de
Stefan N Willich

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews are considered the most reliable tool to summarize existing evidence. To determine whether reviews that address the same questions can produce different answers we examined systematic reviews of herbal medicine, homeopathy, and acupuncture taken from a previously established database. Information on literature searching, inclusion criteria, selection process, quality assessment, data extraction, methods to summarize primary studies, number of included studies, results and conclusions was compared qualitatively. Seventeen topics (eight on acupuncture, six on herbal medicines, three on homeopathy) had been addressed by 2-5 systematic reviews each. The number of primary studies in the reviews varied greatly within most topics. The most obvious reason for discrepancies between the samples was different inclusion criteria (in thirteen topics). Methods of literature searching may have contributed with some topics but the equivalence of the searches was difficult to assess. Differences were frequently observed in other methodological aspects, in results and in conclusions. This analysis shows that, at least in the three areas examined, systematic reviews often differ considerably. Readers should be aware that apparently minor decisions in the review process can have major impact.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicClinical Trials as TopicComplementary TherapiesData Interpretation, StatisticalEvidence-Based MedicineHumansReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID12519797
PMCPMC539366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.