Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26133203›Full record

ArticleJournal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)2015

Consensus Recommendations to NCCIH from Research Faculty in a Transdisciplinary Academic Consortium for Complementary and Integrative Health and Medicine.

Martha Brown Menard, John Weeks, Belinda Anderson, William Meeker, Carlo Calabrese, David O'Bryon, Greg D Cramer

Abstract readConsensus Statement
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

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

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Practice-Based Research Networks and Massage Therapy: a Scoping Review.International journal of therapeutic massage & bodywork · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Advancing Research on Traditional Whole Systems Medicine Approaches.Journal of evidence-based complementary & alternative medicine · 2017
    Article
  8. Article
  9. 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

7 authors.

Martha Brown Menard1 Crocker Institute , Kiawah Island, SC.
John Weeks2 Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care , Seattle, WA.
Belinda Anderson3 Pacific College of Oriental Medicine , New York, NY.
William Meeker4 Palmer College of Chiropractic , San Jose, CA.
Carlo Calabrese5 Center for Natural Medicine , Portland, OR.
David O'Bryon6 Association of Chiropractic Colleges , Bethesda, MD.
Greg D Cramer7 National University of Health Sciences , Lombard, IL.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThis commentary presents the most impactful, shared priorities for research investment across the licensed complementary and integrative health (CIH) disciplines according to the Academic Consortium for Complementary and Alternative Health Care (ACCAHC). These are (1) research on whole disciplines; (2) costs; and (3) building capacity within the disciplines' universities, colleges, and programs. The issue of research capacity is emphasized. DISCUSSION: ACCAHC urges expansion of investment in the development of researchers who are graduates of CIH programs, particularly those with a continued association with accredited CIH schools. To increase capacity of CIH discipline researchers, we recommend National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH) to (1) continue and expand R25 grants for education in evidence-based healthcare and evidence-informed practice at CIH schools; (2) work to limit researcher attrition from CIH institutions by supporting career development grants for clinicians from licensed CIH fields who are affiliated with and dedicated to continuing to work in accredited CIH schools; (3) fund additional stand-alone grants to CIH institutions that already have a strong research foundation, and collaborate with appropriate National Institutes of Health (NIH) institutes and centers to create infrastructure in these institutions; (4) stimulate higher percentages of grants to conventional centers to require or strongly encourage partnership with CIH institutions or CIH researchers based at CIH institutions, or give priority to those that do; (5) fund research conferences, workshops, and symposia developed through accredited CIH schools, including those that explore best methods for studying the impact of whole disciplines; and (6) following the present NIH policy of giving priority to new researchers, we urge NCCIH to give a marginal benefit to grant applications from CIH clinician-researchers at CIH academic/research institutions, to acknowledge that CIH concepts require specialized expertise to translate to conventional perspectives. SUMMARY: We commend NCCIH for its previous efforts to support high-quality research in the CIH disciplines. As NCCIH develops its 2016-2020 strategic plan, these recommendations to prioritize research based on whole disciplines, encourage collection of outcome data related to costs, and further support capacity-building within CIH institutions remain relevant and are a strategic use of funds that can benefit the nation's health.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesIntegrative MedicineHealth PolicyHumansUnited States

Identifiers

PMID26133203
PMCPMC4505754

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.