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

Integrative Medicine in the Canadian Medical Profession: Certificate of Added Competence Proposal for Physicians

Most Canadians use some form of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) and most Canadian physicians are not able to address their patients' use due to inadequate training. Integrative Medicine (IM) in the medical profession has grown over the last 20 years and is now recognized as a sub-specialty in the United States. Canada is lagging behind. The current state of CAM and IM education for physicians in Canada is described, using the United States' experience in comparison. The landscape and obstacles for Integrative Medicine for Canadian physicians is reviewed. A case is made for recognition of Integrative Medicine by Canadian Medical Colleges in order to advance this field in Canada.

Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality

BACKGROUND

Guidelines for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews (SRs) were developed to contribute to implementing evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. As SRs assessing a cohort of SRs is becoming more prevalent in the literature and with the increased uptake of SR evidence for decision-making, methodological quality and standard of reporting of SRs is of interest. The objective of this study is to evaluate SR adherence to the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses (QUOROM) and PRISMA reporting guidelines and the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire (OQAQ) quality assessment tools as evaluated in methodological overviews.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® databases were searched from January 1990 to October 2014. Title and abstract screening and full-text screening were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the quality or reporting of a cohort of SRs of interventions using PRISMA, QUOROM, OQAQ, or AMSTAR were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports and SRs respectively.

RESULTS

Of the 20,765 independent records retrieved from electronic searching, 1189 reports were reviewed for eligibility at full text, of which 56 reports (5371 SRs in total) evaluating the PRISMA, QUOROM, AMSTAR, and/or OQAQ tools were included. Notable items include the following: of the SRs using PRISMA, over 85% (1532/1741) provided a rationale for the review and less than 6% (102/1741) provided protocol information. For reports using QUOROM, only 9% (40/449) of SRs provided a trial flow diagram. However, 90% (402/449) described the explicit clinical problem and review rationale in the introduction section. Of reports using AMSTAR, 30% (534/1794) used duplicate study selection and data extraction. Conversely, 80% (1439/1794) of SRs provided study characteristics of included studies. In terms of OQAQ, 37% (499/1367) of the SRs assessed risk of bias (validity) in the included studies, while 80% (1112/1387) reported the criteria for study selection.

CONCLUSIONS

Although reporting guidelines and quality assessment tools exist, reporting and methodological quality of SRs are inconsistent. Mechanisms to improve adherence to established reporting guidelines and methodological assessment tools are needed to improve the quality of SRs.

Identifying approaches for assessing methodological and reporting quality of systematic reviews: a descriptive study

BACKGROUND

The methodological quality and completeness of reporting of the systematic reviews (SRs) is fundamental to optimal implementation of evidence-based health care and the reduction of research waste. Methods exist to appraise SRs yet little is known about how they are used in SRs or where there are potential gaps in research best-practice guidance materials. The aims of this study are to identify reports assessing the methodological quality (MQ) and/or reporting quality (RQ) of a cohort of SRs and to assess their number, general characteristics, and approaches to 'quality' assessment over time.

METHODS

The Cochrane Library, MEDLINE®, and EMBASE® were searched from January 1990 to October 16, 2014, for reports assessing MQ and/or RQ of SRs. Title, abstract, and full-text screening of all reports were conducted independently by two reviewers. Reports assessing the MQ and/or RQ of a cohort of ten or more SRs of interventions were included. All results are reported as frequencies and percentages of reports.

RESULTS

Of 20,765 unique records retrieved, 1189 of them were reviewed for full-text review, of which 76 reports were included. Eight previously published approaches to assessing MQ or reporting guidelines used as proxy to assess RQ were used in 80% (61/76) of identified reports. These included two reporting guidelines (PRISMA and QUOROM) and five quality assessment tools (AMSTAR, R-AMSTAR, OQAQ, Mulrow, Sacks) and GRADE criteria. The remaining 24% (18/76) of reports developed their own criteria. PRISMA, OQAQ, and AMSTAR were the most commonly used published tools to assess MQ or RQ. In conjunction with other approaches, published tools were used in 29% (22/76) of reports, with 36% (8/22) assessing adherence to both PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria and 26% (6/22) using QUOROM and OQAQ.

CONCLUSIONS

The methods used to assess quality of SRs are diverse, and none has become universally accepted. The most commonly used quality assessment tools are AMSTAR, OQAQ, and PRISMA. As new tools and guidelines are developed to improve both the MQ and RQ of SRs, authors of methodological studies are encouraged to put thoughtful consideration into the use of appropriate tools to assess quality and reporting.

Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews

OBJECTIVE

A critical element in conducting a systematic review is the identification of studies. To date, very little empirical evidence has been reported on whether the presence of a librarian or information professional can contribute to the quality of the final product. The goal of this study was to compare the reporting rigor of the literature searching component of systematic reviews with and without the help of a librarian.

METHOD

Systematic reviews published from 2002 to 2011 in the twenty highest impact factor pediatrics journals were collected from MEDLINE. Corresponding authors were contacted via an email survey to determine if a librarian was involved, the role that the librarian played, and functions that the librarian performed. The reviews were scored independently by two reviewers using a fifteen-item checklist.

RESULTS

There were 186 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, and 44% of the authors indicated the involvement of a librarian in conducting the systematic review. With the presence of a librarian as coauthor or team member, the mean checklist score was 8.40, compared to 6.61 (p<0.001) for reviews without a librarian.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings indicate that having a librarian as a coauthor or team member correlates with a higher score in the literature searching component of systematic reviews.

Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in the Americas region: using the best available evidence and case studies

Background

The objective of this work was to inform the design of a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in health policy and practice for the Americas region. Specifically, we focus on the following: (1) What are the best methodological approaches for rapid reviews of the research evidence? (2) What other strategies are needed to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making in health policy and practice? and (3) How best to operationalize a rapid response program?

Methods

The evidence used to inform the design of a rapid response program included (i) two rapid reviews of methodological approaches for rapid reviews of the research evidence and strategies to facilitate evidence-informed decision-making, (ii) supplementary literature in relation to the “shortcuts” that could be considered to reduce the time needed to complete rapid reviews, (iii) four case studies, and (iv) supplementary literature to identify additional operational issues for the design of the program.

Results

There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting them. Better reporting of rapid review methods is needed. The literature found in relation to shortcuts will be helpful in choosing shortcuts that maximize timeliness while minimizing the impact on quality. Evidence for other strategies that can be used concurrently to facilitate the uptake of research evidence, including evidence drawn from rapid reviews, is presented. Operational issues that need to be considered in designing a rapid response program include the implications of a “user-pays” model, the importance of recruiting staff with the right mix of skills and qualifications, and ensuring that the impact of the model on research use in decision-making is formally evaluated.

Conclusions

When designing a new rapid response program, greater attention needs to be given to specifying the rapid review methods and reporting these in sufficient detail to allow a quality assessment. It will also be important to engage in other strategies to facilitate the uptake of the rapid reviews and to evaluate the chosen model in order to make refinements and add to the evidence base for evidence-informed decision-making.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0472-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Barriers to the Entry of Biofield Healing Into "Mainstream" Healthcare

In this article, we describe barriers to the entry of biofield healing into mainstream contemporary science and clinical practice. We focus on obstacles that arise from the social nature of the scientific enterprise, an aspect of science highlighted by the influential work of Thomas Kuhn (1922-1996), one of the most important- and controversial-philosophers of science in the 20th century. Kuhn analyzed science and its revolutionary changes in terms of the dynamics within scientific communities. Kuhn's approach helps us understand unconventional medical theories and practices such as biofield healing. For many years, these were called "complementary and alternative medicine" (CAM). However, because most people use nonmainstream approaches in conjunction with conventional treatments, the National Institutes of Health and many practitioners now prefer "Complementary and Integrative Medicine" (CIM) where integrative implies "bringing conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way."(1) Biofield healing fits the integrative model well, provides a novel approach to therapeutic intervention, and is developing in a manner that can integrate with current medical science in simple ways. Yet, it still remains outside the conventional framework because of its conceptual bases, which contrast sharply with conventional assumptions regarding the nature of reality.

Immunogenicity against Far Eastern and Siberian subtypes of tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) virus elicited by the currently available vaccines based on the European subtype: systematic review and meta-analysis

Tick-borne encephalitis (TBE) virus, which is usually divided into European, Far Eastern and Siberian subtypes, is a serious public health problem in several European and Asian countries. Vaccination is the most effective measure to prevent TBE; cross-subtype protection elicited by the TBE vaccines is biologically plausible since all TBE virus subtypes are closely related. This manuscript systematically explores available data on the cross-subtype immunogenicity elicited by the currently available Western vaccines based on the European subtype. Completed immunization course of 3 doses of both Western vaccines determined very high seroconversion/seropositivity rates against both Far Eastern and Siberian subtypes among previously flavivirus-naïve subjects. All but one study found no statistically significant difference in titers of neutralizing antibodies against strains belonging to homologous and heterologous subtypes. Pooled analysis of randomized controlled trials on head-to-head comparison of immunogenicity of Western and Russian TBE vaccines did not reveal differences in seroconversion rates against Far Eastern isolates in either hemagglutination inhibition (risk ratio = 0.98, p = 0.83) or enzyme-linked immunosorbent (risk ratio = 0.95, p = 0.44) assays after 2 vaccine doses. This suggests that, in regions where a heterogeneous TBE virus population circulates, vaccines based on the European subtype may be used alongside vaccines based on the Far Eastern subtype. Studies on the field effectiveness of TBE vaccines and investigation of vaccination failures, especially in countries where different subtypes co-circulate, will further elucidate TBE vaccination-induced cross-subtype protection.

Use of recommended search strategies in systematic reviews and the impact of librarian involvement: a cross-sectional survey of recent authors

Background

Previous research looking at published systematic reviews has shown that their search strategies are often suboptimal and that librarian involvement, though recommended, is low. Confidence in the results, however, is limited due to poor reporting of search strategies the published articles.

Objectives

To more accurately measure the use of recommended search methods in systematic reviews, the levels of librarian involvement, and whether librarian involvement predicts the use of recommended methods.

Methods

A survey was sent to all authors of English-language systematic reviews indexed in the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) from January 2012 through January 2014. The survey asked about their use of search methods recommended by the Institute of Medicine, Cochrane Collaboration, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality and if and how a librarian was involved in the systematic review. Rates of use of recommended methods and librarian involvement were summarized. The impact of librarian involvement on use of recommended methods was examined using a multivariate logistic regression.

Results

1560 authors completed the survey. Use of recommended search methods ranged widely from 98% for use of keywords to 9% for registration in PROSPERO and were generally higher than in previous studies. 51% of studies involved a librarian, but only 64% acknowledge their assistance. Librarian involvement was significantly associated with the use of 65% of recommended search methods after controlling for other potential predictors. Odds ratios ranged from 1.36 (95% CI 1.06 to 1.75) for including multiple languages to 3.07 (95% CI 2.06 to 4.58) for using controlled vocabulary.

Conclusions

Use of recommended search strategies is higher than previously reported, but many methods are still under-utilized. Librarian involvement predicts the use of most methods, but their involvement is under-reported within the published article.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses of traditional chinese medicine must search chinese databases to reduce language bias

Systematic reviews (SRs) that fail to search non-English databases may miss relevant studies and cause selection bias. The bias may be particularly severe in SRs of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as most randomized controlled trials (RCT) in TCM are published and accessible only in Chinese. In this study we investigated how often Chinese databases were not searched in SRs of TCM, how many trials were missed, and whether a bias may occur if Chinese databases were not searched. We searched 5 databases in English and 3 in Chinese for RCTs of Chinese herbal medicine for coronary artery disease and found that 96.64% (115/119) eligible studies could be identified only from Chinese databases. In a random sample of 80 Cochrane reviews on TCM, we found that Chinese databases were only searched in 43 or 53.75%, in which almost all the included studies were identified from Chinese databases. We also compared SRs of the same topic and found that they may draw a different conclusion if Chinese databases were not searched. In conclusion, an overwhelmingly high percentage of eligible trials on TCM could only be identified in Chinese databases. Reviewers in TCM are suggested to search Chinese databases to reduce potential selection bias.

Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in the orthopaedic literature

BACKGROUND

Properly designed and conducted systematic reviews can reliably produce valid pooled treatment-effect estimates and are an important resource for clinical decision-making. The purpose of this report was to assess the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews in orthopaedic journals.

METHODS

With use of the 2010 Institute for Scientific Information (ISI) Thomson Reuters Journal Citation Reports, the five orthopaedic surgery journals with the highest impact factors were searched by one individual over a five-year period (from 2006 to 2010) for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. The two authors separately and independently assessed the included studies. The reporting quality was assessed with use of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement, and the methodological quality was assessed with use of the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) guidelines, both of which are accepted instruments. We calculated the proportions of each item reported within and across journals.

RESULTS

Seventy-six systematic reviews and meta-analyses were included. Of the five journals that were examined, articles from The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (American Volume) had the best reporting. Articles from The American Journal of Sports Medicine fulfilled the most methodological quality items. The papers from all of the journals reported an average of only 68% of the PRISMA items and only 54% of the AMSTAR quality items.

CONCLUSIONS

Both reporting and methodological quality in the top five orthopaedic journals were poor; the reporting quality was slightly superior to the methodological quality. Although there was a wide range of reporting quality and methodological quality scores across the journals, the included articles demonstrated inadequate adherence to accepted standards of quality. The use of PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines in designing, implementing, and writing systematic reviews is recommended to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in orthopaedic journals.

CLINICAL RELEVANCE

The validity of published systematic reviews in orthopaedics is questionable, and their contribution to clinical decision-making is suboptimal. Clinicians should be careful when interpreting and applying findings of current orthopaedic systematic reviews.

The Size of the Papilla of Vater and Its Relation to Its Height in Comparison with the Visibility of the Sphincter of Oddi before and after Cholecystectomy

This study investigated the changes in the surface area and height of the papilla of Vater (PV) and the visibility of the sphincter of Oddi complex (SOK) using endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) examinations of 80 patients with symptomatic gallstones before and at 3 and 6 months after cholecystectomy. Following surgery, 50 patients experienced early atypical symptoms characteristic of postcholecystectomy syndrome (PCS) and 30 patients were asymptomatic. The PV measurements were greater in all patients compared with normal reference values and increased significantly from before surgery to 3 months postsurgery. At 6 months postsurgery, both the surface area and height of the PV had significantly decreased to preoperative values but remained higher than normal. The proportion of patients with a visible SOK had increased by 3 months postsurgery but had reduced again by 6 months. There were no significant differences between symptomatic and asymptomatic patients, suggesting that the changes observed in the PV and SOK do not explain the presence of the atypical symptoms of PCS.

Research on integrative healthcare: context and priorities

It is important that integrative healthcare research be conducted to optimize the effectiveness, safety, costs, and social and economic impact of prospective, personalized, patient-centered, comprehensive, and holistic healthcare that focuses on well-being as well as disease management, and that the research itself be well understood. The scope of this research extends beyond evaluation of specific therapies, to include evaluations of multimodality whole system intervention, practitioner-patient relationships, patient goals and priorities, promoting self-care and resilience, personalized diagnostic and therapeutic measures, practitioner well-being, the comparative effectiveness of different educational and outreach strategies in improving health and healthcare, and the environmental/social causes and consequence of health and healthcare. In this paper, we describe the state of the science of research on integrative healthcare, research needs, and opportunities offered by cutting-edge research tools. We propose a framework for setting priorities in integrative health research, list areas for discussion, and pose a few questions on a future research agenda.

Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews

BACKGROUND

Policy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results.

METHODS

A comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25).

RESULTS

Rapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal.

CONCLUSIONS

This review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.

Complementary and alternative medicine in autism: an evidence-based approach to negotiating safe and efficacious interventions with families

This review focuses on helping clinicians identify resources and develop strategies they may use to effectively negotiate safe and effective use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) treatments with families of children with autism spectrum disorders (ASD), as well as other neurodevelopmental disorders. Since new types of CAM continue to be introduced into the autism community, emphasis is placed on providing clinicians with tools to help families negotiate the myriad of available treatments and make decisions based on current safety and efficacy data, while remaining mindful of the reasons families may be considering these treatments. We familiarize readers with high-quality, evidence-based resources that providers and families may use to ascertain current information about specific types of CAM, verify the content of biologically-based treatments, identify ongoing CAM research and obtain toolkits designed to help healthcare providers raise the topic of CAM usage and facilitate disclosure and discussion of CAM use with patients and their families.

The quality of meta-analyses of genetic association studies: a review with recommendations

Although there has been a rapid rise in the publication of meta-analyses of genetic association studies, little is known about their methodological quality. The authors reviewed the quality of 120 randomly selected genetic meta-analyses published between 2005 and 2007. Data extracted included issues of general relevance and other issues specific to genetic epidemiology. Quality was markedly poorer in the 26% of the meta-analyses that accompanied a report on a primary study. Such meta-analyses were predominantly published in specialist journals, and their quality was positively associated with the impact factor of the journal. Among the meta-analyses that did not accompany a primary study, Human Genome Epidemiology reviews tended to score better than the others, although the comparison was limited by relatively small numbers. Comparison of the overall quality with that of genetic meta-analyses published before 2000 showed improvement in both conduct and reporting. However, the quality of the handling of specific genetic issues remains disappointingly low. For a few key general quality issues, the authors compared their findings with findings in other fields of medicine and found that general quality was similar. On the basis of this review, the authors provide practical recommendations for the conduct and reporting of genetic meta-analyses.

American Academy of Pediatrics. The use of complementary and alternative medicine in pediatrics

The American Academy of Pediatrics is dedicated to optimizing the well-being of children and advancing family-centered health care. Related to these goals, the American Academy of Pediatrics recognizes the increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and, as a result, the need to provide information and support for pediatricians. From 2000 to 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics convened and charged the Task Force on Complementary and Alternative Medicine to address issues related to the use of complementary and alternative medicine in children and to develop resources to educate physicians, patients, and families. One of these resources is this report describing complementary and alternative medicine services, current levels of utilization and financial expenditures, and associated legal and ethical considerations. The subject of complementary and alternative medicine is large and diverse, and consequently, an in-depth discussion of each method of complementary and alternative medicine is beyond the scope of this report. Instead, this report will define terms; describe epidemiology; outline common types of complementary and alternative medicine therapies; review medicolegal, ethical, and research implications; review education and training for complementary and alternative medicine providers; provide resources for learning more about complementary and alternative medicine; and suggest communication strategies to use when discussing complementary and alternative medicine with patients and families.

Ethics of complementary and alternative medicine use in children

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has enjoyed tremendous public interest in North America in recent years. CAM is used most often by those who have serious, chronic, or recurrent illness, sometimes for symptom control and sometimes to combat the primary disease. Others use CAM to promote wellness or as a prophylaxis. CAM therapies are increasingly being offered in conventional medical settings and at various other centers and institutes. The relevant ethical commitments or values that must be considered are social commitment to public welfare, nonmaleficence, respect for patient autonomy/consumer choice, recognition of medical pluralism, and public accountability. This article explores the major ethical principles involved in pediatric CAM use and how they affect clinical care and research.

A systematic review evaluating the potential for bias and the methodological quality of meta-analyses in vaccinology

A systematic review was undertaken to produce an annotated bibliography of meta-analyses in vaccinology and to evaluate their methodological quality. Based on our evaluation using the Oxman and Guyatt index, the methodological quality of the 121 meta-analyses included in this study is not satisfactory. The most frequent limitations include non-comprehensive bibliographic research; bias in the selection of the studies; lack of quality assessment of individual studies; absence of evaluation of heterogeneity among studies and publication bias. The methodological quality significantly increases with the year of publication and with declared financial support, without differences between profit and non-profit support. Meta-analyses with a higher Oxman and Guyatt quality score are more likely to include only randomized trials and to explore appropriately potential sources of heterogeneity. Most of the methodological deficiencies of meta-analyses in vaccinology could be corrected easily, and meta-analysts should improve the methodological quality of their work to maintain their impact on policy decisions.

Searching for CAM Evidence: An Evaluation of Therapy-Specific Search Strategies

OBJECTIVES

The aim of this investigation was to explore the effectiveness of search strategies developed to identify trials of specific complementary therapies in a range of clinical conditions.

DESIGN

All primary studies included in a series of systematic reviews were identified. An analysis of the original source of the study and search term(s) by means of which the study had originally been retrieved was carried out. Each study was then searched for in each of 6 databases (AMED, Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE/PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO). The proportion of studies located on each database was assessed and the indexing terms identified for each therapy were compared against the original search strategies.

RESULTS

A total of 127 primary studies were identified from 35 systematic reviews. The number of studies on each therapy varied, but Cochrane CENTRAL listed the highest proportion for all therapies. No database listed all studies, and at least one unique study was listed on all databases except MEDLINE, whereas several studies were not found on any of the databases. Index terms were effective in locating studies on acupuncture, individual herbs, hypnosis, massage, and yoga. For the remaining therapies, use of text word search terms was important and particularly so for homeopathy, meditation, and reflexology. Variation in terminology for most of the therapies was encountered.

CONCLUSIONS

The small numbers of studies preclude firm recommendations, but several potential challenges in searching for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) trials are highlighted. The findings suggest that a range of different sources is required for identifying relevant studies, particularly for certain therapies. The development of an optimum generic search strategy for each therapy is hampered by the variation in indexing of CAM studies. Possible optimum strategies are presented as a basis for discussion, and further testing of the effectiveness of these strategies is now a priority.

Methodological quality of patient-reported outcome research was low in complementary and alternative medicine in oncology

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the methodological robustness of patient-reported outcomes (PROs) evaluation in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in oncology.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

CAM RCTs with a PRO endpoint were retrieved from a number of electronic databases. CAM interventions were defined according to the five major categories of the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine. The "Minimum Standard Checklist for Evaluating HRQOL Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials" was used to assess the quality of the PRO reporting in these trials.

RESULTS

Forty-four RCTs enrolling 4,912 patients were identified: six studies involved alternative medical systems, 14 involved mind body interventions, 15 dealt with biologically-based therapies, seven involved manipulative and body-based methods, and two energy therapies. Eighty-nine percent of studies used a PRO as a primary endpoint and 59% documented PRO missing data. Although 84% of the studies used a validated PRO questionnaire, only 37% stated an a priori hypothesis and 20% addressed clinical significance of the outcomes. Overall, 64% of the studies analyzed exhibited a number of methodological drawbacks.

CONCLUSIONS

To facilitate the interpretation of results from such CAM RCTs, investigators are encouraged to pay greater attention to key methodological issues as identified in this study.

Acupuncture and anaesthesia

Acupuncture and related techniques are increasingly practised in anaesthesia. This paper reviews the current evidence and applicability of acupuncture and related techniques for anaesthetic procedures and postoperative nausea and vomiting. Recent evidence suggests that manual acupuncture is effective for reducing preoperative anxiety and for postoperative pain relief. Current available data do not support the use of acupuncture as an adjunct to the general anaesthetic in the intraoperative setting. There are extensive and good quality data to support the use of P6 acupoint stimulation techniques for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in combination with or as an alternative to conventional anti-emetics. The use of acupuncture for labour pain management appears promising but requires further research. Patient selection, acupoint selection, needling techniques, and mode of acupuncture need to be considered when applying acupuncture and related techniques in the perioperative setting. There are guidelines for the conduct and reporting of acupuncture research, and these should be followed to improve the quality of studies.

Complementary or alternative therapies for osteoarthritis

Complementary or alternative therapies for osteoarthritis are commonly used and therefore it is important that health-care providers and patients are aware of the evidence for or against these approaches. In this article, the best available evidence is reviewed. The results suggest that, for several treatments, the risk-benefit profile is encouraging: acupuncture, several herbal medicines and capsaicin cream. For other therapies the evidence is weak or contradictory: homeopathy, magnet therapy, tai chi, leech therapy, music therapy, yoga, imagery and therapeutic touch. Many other treatments have not been scientifically tested. It is concluded that some complementary or alternative therapies have generated sufficiently promising results to warrant further investigation in large-scale, definitive, randomized clinical trials.

For randomized controlled trials, the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine was as good as reports of conventional medicine

OBJECTIVE

To compare the quality of reporting of reports randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in English and in languages other than English (LOE), and to determine whether there were differences between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We examined more than 600 RCTs associated with 125 systematic reviews. We extracted characteristics of each RCT using a standardized data collection form. We assessed quality using the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.

RESULTS

There were only minor differences in the quality of reports of RCTs published in English compared with other languages (median quality score of 3 vs. 2, P=.10), and the quality of reports of CAM RCTs was similar to the CM reports (median score of 3 vs. 2, P=.14). There was no effect of language of publication on quality of reporting for CM trials (median score of 2 vs. 2, P=.12). Among CAM trials, however, overall quality scores were higher for reports in English than for reports in other languages (median score of 3 vs. 2, P=.04).

CONCLUSION

The overall quality of reports published in languages other than English is similar to that of English-language reports. Moreover, the overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CAM interventions is as good as that for CM interventions.

Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary

OBJECTIVE

To assess whether language of publication restrictions impact the estimates of an intervention's effectiveness, whether such impact is similar for conventional medicine and complementary medicine interventions, and whether the results are influenced by publication bias and statistical heterogeneity.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We set out to examine the extent to which including reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in languages other than English (LOE) influences the results of systematic reviews, using a broad dataset of 42 language-inclusive systematic reviews, involving 662 RCTs, including both conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions.

RESULTS

For CM interventions, language-restricted systematic reviews, compared with language-inclusive ones, did not introduce biased results, in terms of estimates of intervention effectiveness (random effects ration of odds rations ROR=1.02; 95% CI=0.83-1.26). For CAM interventions, however, language-restricted systematic reviews resulted in a 63% smaller protective effect estimate than language-inclusive reviews (random effects ROR=1.63; 95% CI=1.03-2.60).

CONCLUSION

Language restrictions do not change the results of CM systematic reviews but do substantially alter the results of CAM systematic reviews. These findings are robust even after sensitivity analyses, and do not appear to be influenced by statistical heterogeneity and publication bias.