|
Quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine systematic reviews and comparative conventional medicine systematic reviews |
||||
| Matched reviews |
||||
|
|
||||
| Question |
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Reviews (n = 47) n (%) |
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Reviews (n = 17) n (%) |
Comparative Conventional Medicine Reviews (n = 19) n (%) |
p value |
|
|
||||
| 1. Were the search method used to find evidence reported? |
24 (51) |
12 (71) |
10 (53) |
0.270 |
| 2. Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive? |
19 (40) |
7(41) |
6(32) |
0.549 |
| 3. Were the criteria for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported? |
34 (72) |
12 (71) |
8(42) |
0.086 |
| 4. Was bias in the selection of studies avoided? |
10 (21) |
5(29) |
5(26) |
0.836 |
| 5. Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported? |
24 (51) |
9(53) |
5(26) |
0.101 |
| 6. Was the validity of all the studies referred to in the text assessed using appropriate criteria? |
17 (36) |
7(41) |
6(32) |
0.549 |
| 7. Were the methods to combine the findings of the relevant studies reported? |
21 (64)1 |
7 (70)4 |
6 (55)3 |
0.466 |
| 8. Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question the overview addresses? |
25 (81)2 |
8 (80)3 |
7 (64)3 |
0.407 |
| 9. Were the conclusions made by the author(s) supported by the data and/or analysis reported in the overview? |
36 (77) |
12 (71) |
6(33) |
0.021 |
| 10. How would you rate the scientific quality of this overview?4 |
3 (2, 4) |
3 (2,4) |
3 (2, 3.5) |
0.752 |
|
1 Percentage calculated after removing those systematic reviews that were not applicable (n=33). 2 Percentage calculated after removing those systematic reviews that were not applicable (n=31). 3 Percentage calculated after removing those systematic reviews that were not applicable (n=11). 4 Median and 95% confidence intervals | ||||
Moher et al. BMC Pediatrics 2002 2:3 doi:10.1186/1471-2431-2-3 |
||||