ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2010
Geffen Faculty Highlight Concerns Linking CAIM and Conventional Researchers at UCLA Symposium.
Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
David Geffen School of Medicine faculty, representing a wide range of disciplines, engaged speakers nationally known for their expertise on complementary, alternative and integrative medicine (CAIM) and its investigation at a January, 2008 symposium on the campus of the University of California, Los Angeles. The forum was created to educate the UCLA Institutional Review Board (IRB), and lively participation by School of Medicine faculty helped bring IRB members up to speed on controversies surrounding CAIM research. The symposium demonstrated that academics who are neither proponents nor detractors of CAIM can facilitate cross talk between opposing camps, elucidating questions important to its evaluation by those charged with protecting research subjects. It also brought attention to the universality of quandaries facing CAIM investigators and to the ingenuity with which they have addressed many of them.
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.