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

Abstract

BackgroundComplementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is often not disclosed by patients, and can be unfamiliar to health care professionals. This may lead to underuse of beneficial CAM therapies, and overuse of other CAM therapies with little proven benefit or known contraindications. No prior research has thoroughly evaluated the credibility of knowledge-based resources. The purpose of this research was to assess the quantity and quality of CAM guidelines.MethodsA systematic review was conducted to identify CAM guidelines. MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched in January 2016 from 2003 to 2015. The National Guideline Clearinghouse, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health web site, and two CAM journals were also searched. Eligible guidelines published in English language by non-profit agencies on herbal medicine, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation for adults with any condition were assessed with the Appraisal of Guidelines, Research and Evaluation II (AGREE II) instrument.ResultsFrom 3,126 unique search results, 17 guidelines (two herbal medicine, three acupuncture, four spinal manipulation, eight mixed CAM therapies) published in 2003 or later and relevant to several clinical conditions were eligible. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were clarity of presentation (85.3 %), scope and purpose (83.3 %), rigour of development (61.2 %), editorial independence (60.1 %), stakeholder involvement (52.0 %) and applicability (20.7 %). Quality varied within and across guidelines. None of the 17 guidelines were recommended by both appraisers; 14 were recommended as Yes or Yes with modifications.ConclusionsGuidelines that scored well could be used by patients and health care professionals as the basis for discussion about the use of these CAM therapies. In future updates, guidelines that achieved variable or lower scores could be improved according to specifications in the AGREE II instrument, and with insight from a large number of resources that are available to support guideline development and implementation. Future research should identify CAM therapies other than those reviewed here for which guidelines are available. Research is also needed on the safety and effectiveness of CAM therapies.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12906-016-1410-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Complementary and alternative medicine recommendations for depression: a systematic review and assessment of clinical practice guidelines

“…One such study that appraised 17 guidelines on low back pain for both overall and CAM sections, determined that the highest ranking domain was scope and purpose (88.6% overall, 87.1% CAM), followed by clarity of presentation (83.0% overall, 73.2% CAM), and the lowest ranking domain was applicability (31.8, 21.8%), similar to this study's findings [72]. Likewise, other similar studies appraising guidelines of various conditions [25][26][27][71][72][73][74][75][76][77][78][79], including the recent study that appraised 11 guidelines on depression in adults [25], had results similar to this review, demonstrating that the variable and sub-optimal quality of guidelines is consistent with the literature and is not unique.…”

Exploring the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Cancer Patients

“…111-115 Furthermore, the CAM included in the clinical guidelines may not be exhaustive 116 or of varying quality. 117,118…”

Complementary and integrative medicine mention and recommendations: A systematic review and quality assessment of lung cancer clinical practice guidelines

“…In a previous study lead by JYN, it was found that in 17 complementary and alternative medicine-specific CPGs across various diseases and conditions, the scaled domain percentages were ordered in a similar fashion from highest (clarity of presentation 85.3 %) to lowest (applicability 20.7 %). 51 Similarly, the quality varied within and across this subset of CPGs, therefore, the sub-optimal and variable quality of CPGs is not unique to this study. Additionally, it has been found that CAM recommendations across clinical practice guidelines for a variety of diseases/conditions vary both in quality and quantity.…”