Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24734111›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2014

How to assess the external validity and model validity of therapeutic trials: a conceptual approach to systematic review methodology.

Raheleh Khorsan, Cindy Crawford

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 33 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
33citing papers in PubMed, 9 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

33 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Manipulation and mobilization for treating chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis.The spine journal : official journal of the North American Spine Society · 2018
    Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Raheleh KhorsanMilitary Medical Research, Samueli Institute, 2101 East Coast Highway, Suite 300, Corona Del Mar, CA 92625, USA ; Department of Planning, Policy, and Design, School of Social Ecology, University of California Irvine, Irvine, CA 92697-7075, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-2947-079X
Cindy CrawfordSamueli Institute, 1737 King Street, Alexandria, VA 22314, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-6693-8806

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background. Evidence rankings do not consider equally internal (IV), external (EV), and model validity (MV) for clinical studies including complementary and alternative medicine/integrative medicine (CAM/IM) research. This paper describe this model and offers an EV assessment tool (EVAT©) for weighing studies according to EV and MV in addition to IV. Methods. An abbreviated systematic review methodology was employed to search, assemble, and evaluate the literature that has been published on EV/MV criteria. Standard databases were searched for keywords relating to EV, MV, and bias-scoring from inception to Jan 2013. Tools identified and concepts described were pooled to assemble a robust tool for evaluating these quality criteria. Results. This study assembled a streamlined, objective tool to incorporate for the evaluation of quality of EV/MV research that is more sensitive to CAM/IM research. Conclusion. Improved reporting on EV can help produce and provide information that will help guide policy makers, public health researchers, and other scientists in their selection, development, and improvement in their research-tested intervention. Overall, clinical studies with high EV have the potential to provide the most useful information about "real-world" consequences of health interventions. It is hoped that this novel tool which considers IV, EV, and MV on equal footing will better guide clinical decision making.

Identifiers

PMID24734111
PMCPMC3963220

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.