SynthesisBMC complementary and alternative medicine2016
The quantity and quality of complementary and alternative medicine clinical practice guidelines on herbal medicines, acupuncture and spinal manipulation: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II.
Synthesis in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 8 of them syntheses 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
18 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acupuncture recommendations for migraine in headache treatment guidelines: a systematic review.Bulletin of the World Health Organization · 2025Pooled it
- Complementary and alternative medicine mention and recommendations in inflammatory bowel disease guidelines: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Pooled it
- Identifying complementary and alternative medicine recommendations for anxiety treatment and care: a systematic review and critical assessment of comprehensive clinical practice guidelines.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2023Pooled it
- Neck pain clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review of the quality and quantity of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations.European spine journal : official publication of the European Spine Society, the European Spinal Deformity Society, and the European Section of the Cervical Spine Research Society · 2022Pooled it
- Headache and migraine clinical practice guidelines: a systematic review and assessment of complementary and alternative medicine recommendations.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review and Quality Assessment of Breast Cancer Clinical Practice Guidelines Providing Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations.Current oncology reports · 2021Pooled it
- The Presence of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Recommendations in Head and Neck Cancer Guidelines: Systematic Review and Quality Assessment.Current oncology reports · 2021Pooled it
- Complementary and alternative medicine recommendations for depression: a systematic review and assessment of clinical practice guidelines.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Pooled it
- Why some embrace and others hesitate? A behavioral analysis of insomnia sufferers' engagement with acupuncture treatment.World journal of psychiatry · 2025Article
- Quality appraisal of clinical practice guidelines addressing massage interventions using the AGREE II instrument.Systematic reviews · 2024Article
- What traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine recommendations exist across osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines? A systematic review and quality assessment.Integrative medicine research · 2022Review
- Article
- Complementary and integrative medicine mention and recommendations: A systematic review and quality assessment of lung cancer clinical practice guidelines.Integrative medicine research · 2021Review
- A scoping review of network meta-analyses assessing the efficacy and safety of complementary and alternative medicine interventions.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Informing the model of care for an academic integrative healthcare centre: a qualitative study exploring healthcare consumer perspectives.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
- Managing patients with acute and chronic non-specific neck pain: are Danish chiropractors compliant with guidelines?Chiropractic & manual therapies · 2017Article
- Exploring the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Patients.Integrative cancer therapiesArticle
- Exploring the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Patients.Integrative cancer therapiesReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is often not disclosed by patients, and can be unfamiliar to health care professionals. This may lead to underuse of beneficial CAM therapies, and overuse of other CAM therapies with little proven benefit or known contraindications. No prior research has thoroughly evaluated the credibility of knowledge-based resources. The purpose of this research was to assess the quantity and quality of CAM guidelines.
methodsA systematic review was conducted to identify CAM guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in January 2016 from 2003 to 2015. The National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health web site, and two CAM journals were also searched. Eligible guidelines published in English language by non-profit agencies on herbal medicine, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation for adults with any condition were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.
resultsFrom 3,126 unique search results, 17 guidelines (two herbal medicine, three acupuncture, four spinal manipulation, eight mixed CAM therapies) published in 2003 or later and relevant to several clinical conditions were eligible. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were clarity of presentation (85.3 %), scope and purpose (83.3 %), rigour of development (61.2 %), editorial independence (60.1 %), stakeholder involvement (52.0 %) and applicability (20.7 %). Quality varied within and across guidelines. None of the 17 guidelines were recommended by both appraisers; 14 were recommended as Yes or Yes with modifications.
conclusionsGuidelines that scored well could be used by patients and health care professionals as the basis for discussion about the use of these CAM therapies. In future updates, guidelines that achieved variable or lower scores could be improved according to specifications in the AGREE II instrument, and with insight from a large number of resources that are available to support guideline development and implementation. Future research should identify CAM therapies other than those reviewed here for which guidelines are available. Research is also needed on the safety and effectiveness of CAM therapies.
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.