ArticlePloS one2013
An evaluation of epidemiological and reporting characteristics of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews (SRs).
Article in PloS one, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Association Between Prospective Registration and Quality of Systematic Reviews in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: A Meta-epidemiological Study.Frontiers in medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Traditional, complementary and integrative health within universal systems: a transdisciplinary integrative approach to chronic conditions in the Brazilian SUS.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- The HIV care and treatment cascade of adolescents and young adults living with HIV in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Evaluations of the uptake and impact of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement and extensions: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- The HIV Care Cascade from HIV diagnosis to viral suppression in sub-Saharan Africa: a systematic review and meta-regression analysis protocol.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study.Systematic reviews · 2017Review
- Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews of Biomedical Research: A Cross-Sectional Study.PLoS medicine · 2016Article
- Article
- Use of complementary and alternative medicine among midlife Arab women living in Qatar.Eastern Mediterranean health journal = La revue de sante de la Mediterranee orientale = al-Majallah al-sihhiyah li-sharq al-mutawassit · 2014Article
- Bias due to selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses in systematic reviews of randomised trials of healthcare interventions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014Article
- A descriptive analysis of oral health systematic reviews published 1991-2012: cross sectional study.PloS one · 2013Article
- A low proportion of systematic reviews in physical therapy are registered: a survey of 150 published systematic reviews.Brazilian journal of physical therapyReview
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are abundant. The optimal reporting of SRs is critical to enable clinicians to use their findings to make informed treatment decisions. Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies are widely used therefore it is critical that conduct and reporting of systematic research in this field be of high quality. Here, methodological and reporting characteristics of a sample of CAM-related SRs and a sample of control SRs are evaluated and compared.
methodsMEDLINE(®) was searched to identify non-Cochrane SRs indexed from January 2010 to May 2011. Control SRs were retrieved and a search filter was used to identify CAM SRs. Citations were screened and publications that met a pre-specified definition of a SR were included. Pre-designed, standardized data extraction forms were developed to capture reporting and methodological characteristics of the included reviews. Where appropriate, samples were compared descriptively.
resultsA total of 349 SRs were identified, of which 174 were CAM-related SRs and 175 were conventional SRs. We compared 131 CAM-related non-Cochrane SRs to the 175 conventional non-Cochrane reviews. Fifty-seven percent (75/131) of CAM SRs specified a primary outcome compared to 21% (37/175) of conventional sample reviews. Reporting of publication bias occurred in less than 5% (6/131) of the CAM sample versus 46% (80/175) of the conventional sample of SRs. Source of funding was frequently and consistently under-reported. Less than 5% (11/306) of all SRs reported public availability of a review protocol.
conclusionThe two samples of reviews exhibited different strengths and weaknesses. In some cases there were consistencies across items which indicate the need for continued improvements in reporting for all SR reports. We advise authors to utilise the PRISMA Statement or other SR guidance when reporting SRs.
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.