ReviewIranian journal of public health2024
Quality Assessment of Traditional Persian Medicine Observational Studies.
Review in Iranian journal of public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Quality Assessment of Cohort Studies in Complementary and Alternative Medicine: A Scoping Review Over Two Decades.Iranian journal of public health · 2025Review
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
Background: Although observational studies are valuable sources of scientific evidence, they are prone to bias and confounding. This study aimed to assess the quality of observational studies in Traditional Persian medicine (TPM). Methods: A systematic search was conducted in national and international databases up to the end of 2022 to identify observational studies on TPM. The quality of articles was evaluated using the STROBE checklist and CARE guidelines. Results: Out of the 192 articles identified, 109 met the eligible criteria for quality assessment. Cross-sectional and case-control studies had a mean STROBE score of 1.2±0.51 out of 2, with the introduction section scoring highest and the results and methods sections scoring lowest. The worst reported items in the method section involved sensitivity analyses, bias control, and management of missing data. Case reports and case series had a mean score of 1.4±0.55 out of 2, with the section on therapeutic interventions scoring the highest. Other sections like keywords, follow-up and outcomes, diagnostic assessment, patient perspective, and informed consent scored below one. Conclusion: Many reviewed articles did not adhere to the recommended formatting in the evaluation tools, making it challenging to assess their quality. Having said that, the quality of observational studies in the field of TPM is a point of concern.
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.