Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 8 , Pages 777-784 , August 2005

Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional medicine reviews

  • Margaret L. Lawson

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • ,
  • Ba' Pham

      Affiliations

    • BioMedical Data Sciences, GlaxoSmithKline, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
    • Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada
    • ,
  • Terry P. Klassen

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada
    • ,
  • David Moher

      Affiliations

    • Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Chalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute, 401 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L1, Canada
    • Department of Epidemiology & Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    • Corresponding Author InformationCorresponding author. Tel.: 613-738-3591.

,Accepted 30 August 2004.

References 

  1. Davidoff F, Haynes B, Sackett D, Smith R. Evidence Based Medicine: a new journal to help doctors identify the information they need. BMJ. 1995;310:1085–1086
  2. In:  Egger M,  Smith GD,  Altman DG editor. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. 2nd ed.. London: BMJ Books; 2001;
  3. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:91–98
  4. Silagy CA. An analysis of review articles published in primary care journals. Fam Pract. 1993;10:337–341
  5. Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, Knipschild PG, Bouter LM. The relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA. 1995;274:1942–1948
  6. Jadad AR, McQuay HJ. Meta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol. 1996;49:235–243
  7. Grégoire G, Derderian F, Le Lorier J. Selecting the language of the publications included in a meta-analysis: is there a Tower of Babel bias?. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:159–163
  8. Chalmers TC, Berrier J, Sacks HS, Levin H, Reitman D, Nagalingam R. Meta-analysis of clinical trials as a scientific discipline. II: Replicate variability and comparison of studies that agree and disagree. Stat Med. 1987;6:733–744
  9. Moher D, Fortin P, Jadad AR, Jüni P, Klassen T, Le Lorier J, et al. Completeness of reporting of trials published in languages other than English: implications for conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. Lancet. 1996;347:363–366
  10. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses?. J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:964–972
  11. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson M, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1–90
  12. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, Singer J, Goldsmith CH, Hutchison BG, Milner RA, et al. Agreement among reviewers of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:91–98
  13. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 1998;352:609–613
  14. McAuley L, Pham B, Tugwell P, Moher D. Does the inclusion of grey literature influence estimates of intervention effectiveness reported in meta-analyses?. Lancet. 2000;356:1228–1231
  15. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ. 2000;320:537–540[Erratum in: BMJ 2000;320:984 and BMJ 2000;321:275]
  16. Choi PT, Halpern SH, Malik N, Jadad AR, Tramer MR, Walder B. Examining the evidence in anesthesia literature: a critical appraisal of systematic reviews. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:700–709
  17. Shea B, Moher D, Graham I, Pham B, Tugwell P. A comparison of the quality of Cochrane reviews and systematic reviews published in paper-based journals. Eval Health Prof. 2002;25:116–129
  18. Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Lawson ML. Evidence of journal bias against complementary and alternative medicine. Barcelona, Spain: Fourth International Congress on Peer Review in Biomedical Publication; 2001;Available at: http://www.ama-assn.org/public/peer/pre_program2001.htm#complementary
  19. Linde K, ter Riet G, Hondras M, Melchart D, Willich SN. Characteristics and quality of systematic reviews of acupuncture, herbal medicines, and homeopathy. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003;10:88–94
  20. Moher D, Soeken K, Sampson M, Ben-Porat L, Berman B. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine. BMC Pediatr [electronic journal] 2002; 2:3. Available at: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/tocrender.fcgi?journal=55&action=archive.
  21. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316:61–66
  22. Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA. 1998;280:1569–1575

PII: S0895-4356(05)00060-0

doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.08.022

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume 58, Issue 8 , Pages 777-784 , August 2005

Article Tools