Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28335766›Full record

SynthesisBMC complementary and alternative medicine2017

Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review.

Yasamin Veziari, Matthew J Leach, Saravana Kumar

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 48 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
48citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

48 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Oncology researchers' and clinicians' perceptions of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine: an international, cross-sectional survey.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    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

3 authors.

Yasamin VeziariSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia. yaskamal@bigpond.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-7785-3261
Matthew J LeachDepartment of Rural Health, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.
Saravana KumarSchool of Health Sciences, University of South Australia, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA, 5000, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe popularity of Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has grown considerably over the past few decades. This has been accompanied by increasing public pressure for CAM to be evidence-based. Notwithstanding, the conduct and application of research in CAM faces a number of obstacles. No systematic review has mapped these barriers to date. Therefore, this systematic literature review aimed to explore, identify and map the barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM.

methodsSystematic searching of MEDLINE, Embase, AMED, CINAHL, The Cochrane library, Google scholar and Google was conducted between February and June 2016 for pertinent publications. Pearling (secondary searching) of retrieved publications was also undertaken. Literature published only in English were included; however, no year limit was placed for searching. Two critical appraisal tools were used to critically appraise descriptive studies and opinion publications.

resultsA total of 21 eligible publications were included in this review; this comprised of eight primary research articles and thirteen opinion publications. A critical appraisal process found two categories of good quality publications while recognising their limitations in terms of descriptive and opinion publications. The synthesised data from the selected publications about the barriers to the conduct and application of research within CAM were captured within two broad components, namely capacity and culture. Capacity encompassed elements such as access, competency, bias, incentives and time. Encompassed within culture were elements relating to the values and complex system of CAM.

conclusionsMultiple barriers exist for the conduct and application of research in CAM. Given the growing popularity of these therapies, it is essential that the evidence base underpinning CAM also continues to expand. Without overt recognition of these barriers, enabling strategies cannot be applied. By addressing these barriers, CAM professions will be able to develop a critical mass and a well-coordinated research effort to assist the integration of evidence - based practice in CAM.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesEvidence-Based PracticeHumansResearch DesignApplicationBarriersCapacityComplementary and alternative medicineConductCultureEvidence-based practiceResearchSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID28335766
PMCPMC5364631

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.