ArticleJournal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)2011
Opposing systematic reviews: the effects of two quality rating instruments on evidence regarding t'ai chi and bone mineral density in postmenopausal women.
Article in Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Quantitative Ultrasound Examination (QUS) of the Calcaneus in Long-Term Martial Arts Training on the Example of Long-Time Practitioners of Okinawa Kobudo/Karate Shorin-Ryu.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- The Composite Quality Score (CQS) as a trial appraisal tool: inter-rater reliability and rating time.Clinical oral investigations · 2021Article
- The art and science of study identification: a comparative analysis of two systematic reviews.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- Hibiscus sabdariffa L. in the treatment of hypertension and hyperlipidemia: a comprehensive review of animal and human studies.Fitoterapia · 2013Review
- The effect of qigong on depressive and anxiety symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis article compares and contrasts two systematic reviews of t'ai chi (TC) interventions on bone mineral density in postmenopausal women. The aim is to examine how chosen quality rating instruments can impact systematic reviews of TC literature.
methodsThe rating instruments in the reviews, the three-item scale of Jadad et al. and the ad hoc checklist of Wayne et al., were analyzed using Oxman's evaluation criteria for systematic reviews regarding inclusion of articles, interpretation of results, and overall implications for the efficacy of TC on bone mineral density.
resultsAccording to Oxman's criteria, the Jadad scale did not address advances in statistical methods and was not comprehensive enough to adapt to the clinical context or topic. In contrast, the checklist by Wayne et al. was comprehensive, adaptable to clinical context and topical relevance, and compatible with recent developments in statistics and experimental design. These quality rating instruments were critical in the inclusion of studies, analyses, and overall conclusions summarizing the TC literature. The conclusions from the two systematic reviews were starkly opposing; Lee et al. found no convincing evidence, dismissing TC studies as low quality, while Wayne et al. stated that TC may be an effective, safe, and practical intervention.
conclusionsReaders must exercise caution concerning high or low ratings from systematic reviews of TC studies because the choice of quality rating tool can dramatically influence the summary and conclusions of the reviews. There is no consensus on quality rating standards at this time. Of the two, the Jadad scale was not only inadequate but also inappropriate for reviewing TC studies, potentially misleading researchers, clinicians and policymakers. Future systematic reviews of TC should utilize instruments that are updated to current scientific standards, comprehensive, adaptable to clinical context, and relevant to the research topic.
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.