Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35264174›Full record

SynthesisHuman resources for health2022

Methodological issues on "Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review".

Meysam Shirzad, Alireza Abbassian

Abstract readLetterSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Human resources for health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Meysam ShirzadDepartment of Traditional Medicine, School of Persian Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran.
Alireza AbbassianDepartment of Traditional Medicine, School of Persian Medicine, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran. abbasian@sina.tums.ac.ir.ORCID 0000-0002-3759-7731

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Systematic reviews cling to the doctrine that science has an updating databank and attempt to identify all available evidence by featured eligibility criteria to find the answer to a unique scientific question. Therefore, to reach this aim, these researches should use a wise method and comprehensive search strategy, as they are widely used to guide clinical and political decisions and the establishment of future researches. We would like to appreciate Jenny Carè, Amie Steel, and Jon Wardle for the valuable article "Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review". Some important missed search terms in the field of traditional medicine names and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) regulation concepts were discussed in the article.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesMedicine, TraditionalAttitudeHumansOccupationsPersian medicineStakeholdersSystematic reviewTraditional and complementary medicineUyghur medicine

Identifiers

PMID35264174
PMCPMC8905999

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.