Bibliometric and content analysis of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field specialized register of controlled trials

Abstract

BackgroundThe identification of eligible controlled trials for systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions can be difficult. To increase access to these difficult to locate trials, the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field (CAM Field) has established a specialized register of citations of CAM controlled trials. The objective of this study is to describe the sources and characteristics of citations included in the CAM Field specialized register.MethodsBetween 2006 and 2011, regular searches for citations of CAM trials in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were supplemented with contributions of controlled trial citations from international collaborators. The specialized register was ‘frozen’ for analysis in 2011, and frequencies were calculated for publication date, language, journal, presence in MEDLINE, type of intervention, and type of medical condition.ResultsThe CAM Field specialized register increased in size from under 5,000 controlled trial citations in 2006 to 44,840 citations in 2011. Most citations (60%) were from 2000 or later, and the majority (71%) were reported in English; the next most common language was Chinese (23%). The journals with the greatest number of citations were CAM journals published in Chinese and non-CAM nutrition journals published in English. More than one-third of register citations (36%) were not indexed in MEDLINE. The most common CAM intervention type in the register was non-vitamin, non-mineral dietary supplements (e.g., glucosamine, fish oil) (34%), followed by Chinese herbal medicines (e.g., Astragalus membranaceus, Schisandra chinensis) (27%).ConclusionsThe availability of the CAM Field specialized register presents both opportunities and challenges for CAM systematic reviewers. While the register provides access to thousands of difficult to locate trial citations, many of these trials are of low quality and may overestimate treatment effects. When including these trials in systematic reviews, adequate analysis of their risk of bias is of utmost importance.

The quantity and quality of complementary and alternative medicine clinical practice guidelines on herbal medicines, acupuncture and spinal manipulation: systematic review and assessment using AGREE II

“…Following appraisal of the 17 guidelines, ARG met with JYN and LL to discuss and resolve any uncertainties without unduly modifying legitimate discrepancies. This review does not address all CAM therapies; three therapies were chosen (herbal medicine, acupuncture, chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation) because they were identified as having the largest evidence base, and were therefore considered more likely to be the subject of guidelines [39]. We may not have identified all guidelines that included these three types of CAM therapy because, to establish a feasible scope, we did not search for guidelines on specific clinical topics and then peruse them for CAM-related content, and we did not search all CAM journals or the Guidelines International Network guideline library.…”

“…With respect to interventions , guidelines were more likely to have been published on CAM interventions for which evidence has accumulated. We referred to a bibliometric and content analysis of CAM trials in the Cochrane Library by Wieland et al [39] which found that the CAM therapies most commonly evaluated in trials included herbal supplements (non-vitamin, non-mineral dietary supplements or Chinese herbal medicine), acupuncture, and chiropractic or osteopathic manipulation [39]. For this study, guidelines were eligible if they specifically focused on any of these CAM therapies (category 1 – CAM-specific), or were general CAM guidelines that included at least one recommendation (for or against) at least of these CAM therapies (category 2 – CAM-general).…”

Publication Trends in Acupuncture Research: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis Based on PubMed

“…As a simple form of big data analysis, it is useful in revealing historical development [20], quantifying existing trends [24], and predicting the future in a given research domain. Bibliometric methods have been applied to medical related topics [26–32] including complementary and alternative medicine [33–35]. The results of these findings can be used as context for analyzing broad scale strengths and gaps in the current state of evidence in a field, and for informing a comprehensive strategic plan for further advancing the field.…”

Yoga for treatment of urinary incontinence in women

“…The Complementary Medicine Field Specialised Register contains trials identified from CENTRAL, Chinese databases, Korean databases, and multiple small databases that have been identified as good sources of complementary medicine trials (Wieland 2013). …”