ArticleBMC complementary and alternative medicine2018
The development of a survey instrument to measure the barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a Delphi study.
Article in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of the Diabetes Burnout Scale for patients with type 2 diabetes: a modified Delphi study.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2026Article
- Using Nominal Group Technique to Gather Recommendations in the Decision-Making for Amputation Due to Diabetes.Journal of foot and ankle research · 2025Article
- Developing a professional competency framework for general practitioners in tertiary hospitals in China: a modified Delphi study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Validating quality standards in Palestinian emergency departments: An e-Delphi survey approach.PloS one · 2025Article
- Content Validation of a Chrononutrition Questionnaire for the General and Shift Work Populations: A Delphi Study.Nutrients · 2021Article
- Addressing barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a scoping review.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2021Article
- Developing a model Fracture Liaison Service consultation with patients, carers and clinicians: a Delphi survey to inform content of the iFraP complex consultation intervention.Archives of osteoporosis · 2021Article
- Health Sciences-Evidence Based Practice Questionnaire (HS-EBP): Normative Data and Differential Profiles in Spanish Osteopathic Professionals.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2020Article
- Model construction of medical endoscope service evaluation system-based on the analysis of Delphi method.BMC health services research · 2020Article
- Developing a tool for measuring the disaster resilience of healthcare rescuers: a modified Delphi study.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2020Article
- Expert consensus on the development of a health-related questionnaire for the pediatric field of Korean medicine: a Delphi study.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2020Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAs Complementary and Alternative medicine (CAM) grows in popularity, there is overt recognition for research evidence to inform clinical practice. While various strategies have been trialed to overcome the barriers to such progress, it is important to first understand the extent to which these barriers impact the conduct and application of CAM research. This study aimed to garner consensus and agreement among CAM researchers and practitioners in refining and validating a preliminary survey instrument for measuring these barriers.
methodsA three-round Delphi study was undertaken with 22 international experts of CAM research and practice. Round one gathered consensus on 30 statements listing barriers to the application and conduct of CAM research. Only rounds two and three sought consensus on revised statements. Any statement demonstrating ≥ 70% agreement on a four-point Likert scale was determined to have reached consensus.
resultsConsensus and agreement was achieved for all 30 statements listing the barriers to the application and conduct of research in CAM. Additional commentary by the Delphi participants directed whether a statement had to be split into two parts or reworded. This process resulted in the generation of the "BarrierS To the Application and Conduct of rEsearch" (oBSTACLES) instrument.
conclusionThis study, the first of its kind on this topic, identified consensus and agreement on a series of evidence-informed statements to measure the barriers to the conduct and application of research in CAM. The uniqueness of the oBSTACLES instrument is its ability to measure barriers across the evidence-based continuum.
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.