Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32385761›Full record

SynthesisClinical rheumatology2020

Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines provide few complementary and alternative medicine therapy recommendations: a systematic review.

Jeremy Y Ng, Ashlee M Azizudin

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Clinical rheumatology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 8 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Article
  10. Developing anFrontiers in immunology · 2025
    Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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.

Jeremy Y NgDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. ngjy2@mcmaster.ca.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0031-5873
Ashlee M AzizudinDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sixty percent of patients with arthritis have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies at least once. The two most common types of arthritis include rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). The quality and quantity of CAM recommendations for RA and OA is currently unknown. The purpose of this research was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of RA and OA. A systematic review was conducted to identify CPGs; MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018. The Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. Three independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting for each guideline that provided CAM recommendations, and the specific section providing CAM recommendations, using the AGREE II instrument. From 525 unique search results, seven guidelines (3 OA, 4 RA) mentioned CAM and 5 guidelines made CAM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were (overall, CAM) as follows: clarity of presentation (92.2% vs. 94.1%), scope and purpose (90.1% vs. 87.4%), rigour of development (72.6% vs. 64.2%), stakeholder involvement (64.8% vs. 49.6%), editorial independence (61.1% vs. 60.6%), and applicability (51.4% vs. 33.3%). None of the 5 guidelines was recommended by both appraisers for either the overall guideline or CAM section. For the overall guideline, appraisers agreed in their overall recommendation for 3 of 5 guidelines, including 3 Yes with modifications; of the remaining 2 guidelines, 1 was rated by the three appraisers as 1 No and 2 Yes with modifications, while 1 guideline was rated at 2 Yes and 1 Yes with modifications. For the CAM section, appraisers agreed in their overall recommendation for all 5 guidelines including 1 No, and 4 Yes with modifications. Roughly half of arthritis CPGs found included in this review provided CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations are of lower quality than overall recommendations across the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, applicability, and editorial independence domains. Quality varied within and across guidelines.

Indexed as

Arthritis, RheumatoidComplementary TherapiesOsteoarthritisHumansAGREE IIClinical practice guidelineComplementary and alternative medicineOsteoarthritisRheumatoid arthritisSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID32385761

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.