Can you trust systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies?

Linde, Klaus

doi:10.1016/j.eujim.2009.09.002

Cited by 6 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One of the key limitations was the pragmatic decision to only include SRs, which may have led to the exclusion of some complementary medicines, and means results are subject to the limitations of SR and trial methodology, study designs which are sometimes challenging for complementary medicine. 157–159 Another key limitation is our definition of complementary medicine as including a practitioner in its delivery (which relied on review authors reporting these details), which excluded over-the -counter products or self-care practices, herbal medicine in particular, but was necessary to limit the scope of the review to complementary medicine which may be appropriate for an integrated care model using referral from a general practitioner. We are aware that by excluding reviews published pre-2005, we may have excluded some topics.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ObjectiveTo identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)–mental health (MH) comorbidity, by synthesising evidence on effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic reviews (SRs).DesignScoping review of SRs.MethodsWe searched literature databases, registries and reference lists, and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of randomised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH. Inclusion criteria were: published after 2004, studying adults, in English and scoring >50% on Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR); quality appraisal checklist). SRs were synthesised to identify research priorities, based on moderate/good quality evidence, sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety.ResultsWe included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs. Only one focused on MSK–MH comorbidity. Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK populations. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions. SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence (any comparator) in a moderate/large population for: low back pain (LBP) (yoga, acupuncture, spinal manipulation/mobilisation, osteopathy), osteoarthritis (OA) (acupuncture, tai chi), neck pain (acupuncture, manipulation/manual therapy), myofascial trigger point pain (acupuncture), depression (mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR), meditation, tai chi, relaxation), anxiety (meditation/MBSR, moving meditation, yoga), sleep disorders (meditative/mind–body movement) and stress/distress (mindfulness). The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety—only three had evidence of harm. There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP, and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain, but few SRs reviewed cost-effectiveness and many found no data.ConclusionsOnly one SR studied MSK–MH comorbidity. Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH (LBP, OA, depression, anxiety and sleep problems) are yoga, mindfulness and tai chi. Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity, more high-quality, large randomised controlled trials in comorbid populations are needed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The systematic review is a research approach to knowledge transfer that aims to bring primary research evidence closer to decision making. Regarded as the most reliable method of summarizing data and evaluating evidence, systematic reviews of CAM can affect considerably health care decision making, media portrayal, public opinion, and attitudes among the scientific community (Linde, 2009). In a systematic review of mixed method studies considering the credibility of aboriginal research designs, Saini (2012) found none of the 68 reviewed studies conducted a cross-validation analysis between aboriginal and Western research methodologies.…”

Section: Systematic Reviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bridging Indigenous and Western Sciences

Massey

Kirk

2015

Sage Open

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Emergent research methodologies congruent with Indigenous knowledge and worldviews are providing access to insights from traditional, complementary, and alternative medicine, including Indigenous healing systems. Tension is evident for researchers balancing representation of Indigenous realities with expectation to conform to the conventionality and rationality of "acceptable" Western science-based research protocols. Where past research pursuits have been limited by polarized views of legitimacy and validity, Western science and Indigenous science are now converging as equally valid notions of science to guide emergent research practices such as Kaupapa Māori. This narrative synthesis explores complex relations between epistemology, methodology, and practice. It aims to contribute to the transfer of knowledge between Indigenous and Western scientific paradigms.

show abstract

“…They may sometimes describe just a few examples of possible items, without specifying a whole list of proposed items. In sum, recommendations refer to those approaches that do not fulfill the criteria required by the previous two categories (Ford and Moayyedi, 2009; Linde, 2009; Wilson, 2009). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The abovementioned characteristics of the concept of methodological quality , that is, the diversity in its theoretical and empirical definition (Linde, 2009), imply three interrelated and specific problems:…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Development of a Checklist to Enhance Methodological Quality in Intervention Programs

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The methodological quality of primary studies is an important issue when performing meta-analyses or systematic reviews. Nevertheless, there are no clear criteria for how methodological quality should be analyzed. Controversies emerge when considering the various theoretical and empirical definitions, especially in relation to three interrelated problems: the lack of representativeness, utility, and feasibility. In this article, we (a) systematize and summarize the available literature about methodological quality in primary studies; (b) propose a specific, parsimonious, 12-items checklist to empirically define the methodological quality of primary studies based on a content validity study; and (c) present an inter-coder reliability study for the resulting 12-items. This paper provides a precise and rigorous description of the development of this checklist, highlighting the clearly specified criteria for the inclusion of items and a substantial inter-coder agreement in the different items. Rather than simply proposing another checklist, however, it then argues that the list constitutes an assessment tool with respect to the representativeness, utility, and feasibility of the most frequent methodological quality items in the literature, one that provides practitioners and researchers with clear criteria for choosing items that may be adequate to their needs. We propose individual methodological features as indicators of quality, arguing that these need to be taken into account when designing, implementing, or evaluating an intervention program. This enhances methodological quality of intervention programs and fosters the cumulative knowledge based on meta-analyses of these interventions. Future development of the checklist is discussed.

show abstract

Can you trust systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies?

Cited by 6 publications

References 42 publications

Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions

Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions

Bridging Indigenous and Western Sciences

The Development of a Checklist to Enhance Methodological Quality in Intervention Programs

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About