An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)

PLoS ONE

Volumn 8, Issue 1, 2013, Pages

  Turner, Lucy ^a   Galipeau, James ^a   Garritty, Chantelle ^a   Manheimer, Eric ^b   Wieland, L Susan ^b   Yazdi, Fatemeh ^a   Moher, David ^a,c  

^a OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OTTAWA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DATA EXTRACTION; FUNDING; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; SAMPLE; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC);

CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES; EPIDEMIOLOGIC METHODS; HUMANS; META-ANALYSIS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH REPORT; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 84872362888     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0053536     Document Type: Article

References (63)

1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I, (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7: e1000326.
2. Board on Health Services (2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Available: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-Systematic-Reviews.aspx. Accessed 2012 Jul.
3. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097.
4. Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Altman DG, (2007) Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med 4: e78.
5. Barnes PM, Bloom B, Nahin RL (2008) Complementary and alternative medicine use among adults and children: United States, 2007. Natl Health Stat Report 1-23.
6. Harris P, Rees R, (2000) The prevalence of complementary and alternative medicine use among the general population: a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med 8: 88-96.
7. Harris P, (2000) Difficulties of conducting systematic reviews of survey studies. Complement Ther Med 8: 288.
8. Wieland LS, Manheimer E, Berman BM, (2011) Development and classification of an operational definition of complementary and alternative medicine for the Cochrane collaboration. Altern Ther Health Med 17: 50-59.
9. U.S National Library of MedicineAbridged Index Medicus (AIM or "Core Clinical") Journal Titles. Available: http://www.nlm.nih.gov/bsd/aim.html. Accessed 2012 Sep 19.
10. Higgins JPT, Green S (editors) (2011) Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available: http://www.cochrane-handbook.org. Accessed 2012 Jul 18.
11. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, et al. (2009) The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med 6: e1000100.
12. (2012) The Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health Website. Available: www cadth ca. Accessed 2012 Oct 19.
13. (2010) DistillerSR. Evidence Partners, Ottawa, ON, Canada. Available: www.systematic-review.net.
14. (2011) SAS Software, Version 9.1 Copyright©. SAS Institute Inc Cary, NC, USA.
15. Moseley AM, Elkins MR, Herbert RD, Maher CG, Sherrington C, (2009) Cochrane reviews used more rigorous methods than non-Cochrane reviews: survey of systematic reviews in physiotherapy. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 1021-1030.
16. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Pham B, Brehaut J, Moher D, (2009) Non-Cochrane vs. Cochrane reviews were twice as likely to have positive conclusion statements: cross-sectional study. J Clin Epidemiol 62: 380-386.
17. Schulz KF, Altman DG, Moher D, (2010) CONSORT 2010 statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials. BMJ 340: c332.
18. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, Olkin I, Williamson GD, et al. (2000) Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA 283: 2008-2012.
19. Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Sterne JAC (editors) (2011) Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: http:, handbook.cochrane.org/, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions: Cochrane Book Series. Accessed 18 July 2012: 187-241.
20. Dechartres A, Charles P, Hopewell S, Ravaud P, Altman DG, (2011) Reviews assessing the quality or the reporting of randomized controlled trials are increasing over time but raised questions about how quality is assessed. J Clin Epidemiol 64: 136-144.
21. Slim K, Nini E, Forestier D, Kwiatkowski F, Panis Y, et al. (2003) Methodological index for non-randomized studies (minors): development and validation of a new instrument. ANZ J Surg 73: 712-716.
22. Downs SH, Black N, (1998) The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health 52: 377-384.
23. Zaza S, Carande-Kulis VG, Sleet DA, Sosin DM, Elder RW, et al. (2001) Methods for conducting systematic reviews of the evidence of effectiveness and economic efficiency of interventions to reduce injuries to motor vehicle occupants. Am J Prev Med 21: 23-30.
24. (2012) Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL). The Cochrane Library Issue 9. Accessed 10 October 2012.
25. Garritty C, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Sampson M, Moher D, (2010) Updating systematic reviews: an international survey. PLoS One 5: e9914.
26. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J, (2003) How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 7: 1-76.
27. Hartling L, Schellenberg ES, Shulhan J, Dryden DM (2012) Approaches to risk of bias assessments in non-Cochrane reviews. Poster presentation at the 20th Cochrane Colloquium, Auckland, New Zealand.
28. Sterne JA, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JP, Terrin N, Jones DR, et al. (2011) Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 343: d4002.
29. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, et al. (1999) Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet 354: 1896-1900.
30. MacPherson H, Altman DG, Hammerschlag R, Youping L, Taixiang W, et al. (2010) Revised STandards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA): Extending the CONSORT statement. J Evid Based Med 3: 140-155.
31. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, (2008) Methods and processes of the CONSORT Group: example of an extension for trials assessing nonpharmacologic treatments. Ann Intern Med 148: W60-W66.
32. (2008) RevMan 2008 The Cochrane Collaboration (2008) Review Manager (RevMan). 5 0 Copenhagen, The Nordic Cochrane Centre: The Cochrane Collaboration.
33. (2012) ENDNOTE citation software. Thomson Reuters ISI.
34. Brozek J, Oxman A, Schünemann H (2008) GRADEpro. Version 3.2 for Windows.
35. (2008) Refworks-COS. Available: www refworks com. Accessed 2012 Oct 19.
36. von EE, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, et al. (2008) The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. J Clin Epidemiol 61: 344-349.
37. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A, (2011) GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol 64: 380-382.
38. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, et al. (2009) Oxford Centre for evidence-based medicine online guidelines. Availablet: http://www cebm net/index aspx?o = 1001. Accessed 2012 Oct 19.
39. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence: Guidance (2003) London: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (UK) Available: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK11822/.Accessed 2012 Oct.
40. Philadelphia Panel evidence-based clinical practice guidelines on selected rehabilitation interventions for low back pain. Phys Ther 81: 1641-1674.
41. Viswanathan M, Ansari MT, Berkman ND, Chang S, Hartling L, et al. (2008) Assessing the Risk of Bias of Individual Studies in Systematic Reviews of Health Care Interventions.
42. Jadad AR, Moore RA, Carroll D, Jenkinson C, Reynolds DJ, et al. (1996) Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: is blinding necessary? Control Clin Trials 17: 1-12.
43. Wells GA, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, et al. (2008) The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomised studies in meta-analyses. Available: http://www.ohri ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford asp. Accessed Oct 2012.
44. Egger M, Davey SG, Schneider M, Minder C, (1997) Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ 315: 629-634.
45. Cox E, Martin BC, Van ST, Garbe E, Siebert U, et al. (2009) Good research practices for comparative effectiveness research: approaches to mitigate bias and confounding in the design of nonrandomized studies of treatment effects using secondary data sources: the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research Good Research Practices for Retrospective Database Analysis Task Force Report-Part II. Value Health 12: 1053-1061.
46. Verhagen AP, de Vet HC, de Bie RA, Kessels AG, Boers M, et al. (1998) The Delphi list: a criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. J Clin Epidemiol 51: 1235-1241.
47. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, Lohr KN, Mulrow CD, et al. (2001) Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med 20: 21-35.
48. Cho MK, Bero LA, (1994) Instruments for assessing the quality of drug studies published in the medical literature. JAMA 272: 101-104.
49. Sauerland S, Angrisani L, Belachew M, Chevallier JM, Favretti F, et al. (2005) Obesity surgery: evidence-based guidelines of the European Association for Endoscopic Surgery (EAES). Surg Endosc 19: 200-221.
50. (2012) American Academy of Neurology guidelines. Available: www aan com. Accessed 2012 Oct.
51. de Morton NA, (2009) The PEDro scale is a valid measure of the methodological quality of clinical trials: a demographic study. Aust J Physiother 55: 129-133.
52. Tong A, Sainsbury P, Craig J, (2007) Consolidated criteria for reporting qualitative research (COREQ): a 32-item checklist for interviews and focus groups. Int J Qual Health Care 19: 349-357.
53. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, et al. (2002) Systems to rate the strength of scientific evidence. Evid Rep Technol Assess (Summ) 1-11.
54. Schulz KF, Chalmers I, Hayes RJ, Altman DG, (1995) Empirical evidence of bias. Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. JAMA 273: 408-412.
55. Phillips B, Ball C, Sackett D, Badenoch D, Straus S, et al. (2009) Oxford Centre for Evidence-based Medicine- Levels of Evidence. Centre for Evidence Based Medicine Avaialble: http://www.cebm.net/index.aspx?o=1025. Accessed 2012 Dec.
56. Santaguida P, Raina P, Ismaila A (2012) The development of the McHarm quality assessment scale for adverse events. Available: http://hiru.mcmaster ca/epc/mcharm pdf. Accessed 2012 Dec.
57. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH, (1991) Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol 44: 1271-1278.
58. Khan KS, ter Riet G, Glanville J, Sowden AJ, Kleijnen J (2001) Undertaking systematic reviews of research on effectiveness: CRD's guidance for carrying out or commissioning reviews. NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination.
59. (2012) Critical Appraisal Skills Programme: Making sense of evidence. Available: http://www casp-uk net/. Accessed 2012 Oct 18.
60. Harbour R, Miller J, (2001) A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. BMJ 323: 334-336.
61. Stetler CB, Morsi D, Rucki S, Broughton S, Corrigan B, et al. (1998) Utilization-focused integrative reviews in a nursing service. Appl Nurs Res 11: 195-206.
62. van TM, Furlan A, Bombardier C, Bouter L, (2003) Updated method guidelines for systematic reviews in the cochrane collaboration back review group. Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 28: 1290-1299.
63. Debachere MC, (1995) Problems in obtaining grey literature. IFLA Journal 21: 94-98.