scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine: “Miscellaneous Therapies”

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 3356
Author(s):  
Anna Bergh ◽  
Iréne Lund ◽  
Anna Boström ◽  
Heli Hyytiäinen ◽  
Kjell Asplund
Keyword(s):  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Neural Therapy ◽  
Gold Therapy ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

There is an increasing interest in complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM). There is, however, an uncertainty of the efficacy of these methods. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the evidence for clinical efficacy of 24 CAVM therapies used in cats, dogs, and horses. A bibliographic search, restricted to studies in cats, dogs, and horses, was performed on Web of Science Core Collection, CABI, and PubMed. Relevant articles were assessed for scientific quality, and information was extracted on study characteristics, species, type of treatment, indication, and treatment effects. Of 982 unique publications screened, 42 were eligible for inclusion, representing nine different CAVM therapies, which were aromatherapy, gold therapy, homeopathy, leeches (hirudotherapy), mesotherapy, mud, neural therapy, sound (music) therapy, and vibration therapy. For 15 predefined therapies, no study was identified. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 17 studies, moderate to high in 10, moderate in 10, low to moderate in four, and low in one study. In those studies where the risk of bias was low to moderate, there was considerable heterogeneity in reported treatment effects. Therefore, the scientific evidence is not strong enough to define the clinical efficacy of the 24 CAVM therapies.

scholarly journals Treatment effects of pharmacotherapy and non-pharmacotherapy of Alzheimer dementia: A systematic review overview and updated network meta-analysis.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chitima Boongird ◽  
Worapong Tearneukit ◽  
Thunyarat Anothaisintawee ◽  
Gareth McKay ◽  
Ammarin Thakkinstian
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Clinical Practices ◽  
Alzheimer Dementia ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Ethical Approval ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Introduction: Many existing systematic reviews and meta-analyses summarize the evidence of pharmacotherapies (PTs) and non-pharmacotherapies (NPTs) for wide range of available interventions for the management of Alzheimer dementia (AD). However, a succinct summary and efficacy comparison across the different types of treatments and interventions is lacking. We aim to identify the treatment or treatments with the highest efficacy of current pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for AD.Methods and analysis: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) will be selected according to the following criteria: conducted in elderly patients aged 60 years or older with AD, applied pairwise meta-analysis (PMA) or network meta-analysis (NMA) for pooled relative treatment effects for at least one pair of PTs and NPTs, and at least one of following outcomes was provided for patients/caregivers: cognitive function status, behavior, quality of life. The summary characteristics for each RCT will include the general design, participants, intervention, outcome measurements, duration of therapy and adverse events. The risk of bias will be assessed using Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) checklist and the risk of bias of individual RCTs will be assessed using the Revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool.Ethics and Dissemination: Ethical approval will not be required because this study is based solely on published literature that meets accepted ethical standards, and there will be no concerns about privacy. Dissemination of the evidence obtained will include publication in a peer-reviewed international journal to improve clinical practices on the basis of robust scientific evidence.PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021228245

scholarly journals A Questionnaire Study on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine for Horses in Sweden

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (11) ◽  
pp. 3113
Author(s):  
Karin Gilberg ◽  
Anna Bergh ◽  
Susanna Sternberg-Lewerin
Keyword(s):  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Back Pain ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Questionnaire Study ◽  
Treatment Methods ◽  
Electronic Questionnaires ◽  
First Contact ◽  
Horse Owners ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Complementary or alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM) includes treatment methods with limited scientific evidence. Swedish veterinarians are legally obliged to base treatments and recommendations on science or well-documented experience, but most CAVM methods are not well documented in animals. The aim of this study was to explore the use of CAVM in Swedish horses. Electronic questionnaires were distributed to horse owners, equine veterinary practitioners and CAVM therapists. Of the 204 responding horse owners, 83% contacted a veterinarian first in case of lameness, while 15% contacted a CAVM therapist. For back pain, 52% stated a CAVM therapist as their first contact and 45% a veterinarian. Only 10–15% of the respondents did not use any CAVM method for prevention or after injury. Of the 100 veterinarians who responded, more than half did not use CAVM themselves but 55% did refer to people who offer this service. Of the 124 responding CAVM therapists, 72% recommended their clients to seek veterinary advice when needed, 50% received referrals from a veterinarian, and 25% did not collaborate with a veterinarian. The two most common methods used by the respondents in all three categories were stretching and massage. Most veterinarians and therapists were not content with the current lack of CAVM regulation.

scholarly journals Can we rely on non-randomised studies? Findings from a meta-epidemiological review

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
J C Rejon-Parrilla ◽  
M Salcher-Konrad ◽  
M Nguyen ◽  
K Davis ◽  
P Jonsson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Economic ◽  
Analytical Methods ◽  
Large Scale ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Controlled Trial ◽  
Health Economic Evaluation ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Economic Decision Making ◽  
Wide Range ◽  
Randomised Controlled

Abstract Background Increasingly, health technology assessment (HTA) agencies must decide whether new medicines should be used routinely in the absence of randomised controlled trial (RCT) data, relying solely on non-randomised studies (NRS), which are at high risk of bias due to confounding. Against the background of increased availability and improved methods to analyse non-randomised data (e.g., propensity score methods and instrumental variables), it is important for decision-makers to have guidance on the analysis and interpretation of NRS to inform health economic evaluation. We therefore aimed to systematically and empirically assess the performance of NRS using different analytical methods as compared to RCTs and develop recommendations on the basis of our findings. Methods We conducted a large-scale meta-epidemiological review to obtain estimates of the discrepancy in treatment effects in matched RCTs and NRS of pharmacologic interventions from published meta-analyses indexed in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also consulted with HTA bodies, regulators and academics from five European countries to learn from their experience with using non-randomised evidence. Results We compiled the largest dataset of clinical topics with matching RCTs and NRS using various analytical methods to date, covering >100 unique clinical questions. Incorporating information on direction of effect and effect size from >700 unique studies, the dataset can be used to evaluate discrepancies in treatment effects between study designs across a wide range of therapeutic areas. Conclusions An empirically based understanding of the risk of bias in NRS is required in order to promote the adequate use of non-randomised evidence as input for health economic decision-making.

scholarly journals Distant Healing Intention Therapies: An Overview of the Scientific Evidence

2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1_suppl) ◽  
pp. gahmj.2015.012. ◽  
Author(s):  
Dean Radin ◽  
Marilyn Schlitz ◽  
Christopher Baur
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Distant Healing ◽  
Experimental Protocols ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Nonlocal Nature ◽  
Broad Overview ◽  
Healing Modalities

This article provides a broad overview of “distant healing intention” (DHI) therapies, ie, intentional healing modalities claimed to transcend the usual constraints of distance through space or time. We provide a summary of previous reviews and meta-analyses that have explored a diverse array of DHI modalities, outcome measures, and experimental protocols. While some significant experimental effects have been observed, the evidence to date does not yet provide confidence in its clinical efficacy. The purported “nonlocal” nature of DHI raises significant methodological and theoretical challenges. We recommend several avenues for improving future research.

scholarly journals Investigation of Risk Of Bias due to Unreported and SelecTively included results in meta-analyses of nutrition research: the ROBUST study protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1760 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew J. Page ◽  
Lisa Bero ◽  
Cynthia M. Kroeger ◽  
Zhaoli Dai ◽  
Sally McDonald ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Included Study ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Dietary Guidelines ◽  
Healthy Population ◽  
Nutrition Research ◽  
Health Related ◽  
Meta Analyses

Background: Dietary guidelines should be informed by systematic reviews (SRs) of the available scientific evidence. However, if the SRs that underpin dietary guidelines are flawed in their design, conduct or reporting, the recommendations contained therein may be misleading or harmful. To date there has been little empirical investigation of bias due to selective inclusion of results, and bias due to missing results, in SRs of food/diet-outcome relationships. Objectives: To explore in SRs with meta-analyses of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes: (i) whether systematic reviewers selectively included study effect estimates in meta-analyses when multiple effect estimates were available; (ii) what impact selective inclusion of study effect estimates may have on meta-analytic effects, and; (iii) the risk of bias due to missing results (publication bias and selective non-reporting bias) in meta-analyses. Methods: We will systematically search for SRs with meta-analysis of the association between food/diet and health-related outcomes in a generally healthy population, published between January 2018 and June 2019. We will randomly sort titles and abstracts and screen them until we identify 50 eligible SRs. The first reported meta-analysis of a binary or continuous outcome in each SR (the ‘index meta-analysis’) will be evaluated. We will extract from study reports all study effect estimates that were eligible for inclusion in the index meta-analyses (e.g. from multiple instruments and time points) and will quantify and test for evidence of selective inclusion of results. We will also assess the risk of bias due to missing results in the index meta-analyses using a new tool (ROB-ME). Ethics and dissemination: Ethics approval is not required because information will only be extracted from published studies. Dissemination of the results will be through peer-reviewed publications and presentations at conferences. We will make all data collected from this study publicly available via the Open Science Framework.

How to Search and Critique Scientific Evidence for Decision-Making

2017 ◽  
pp. 100-123
Author(s):  
Mayuree Tangkiatkumjai ◽  
Win Winit-Watjana ◽  
Li-Chia Chen
Keyword(s):  
Alternative Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative Medicine ◽  
Literature Search ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
Search Terms ◽  
Based Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

A clinical decision on the use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) should be made based on evidence-based medicine (EBM) together with practitioner's knowledge and experiences. This chapter describes the process of EBM, including how to address a clinical question, do a systematic search for appropriate evidence with key search terms, appraise the evidence and make a clinical decision on CAM applications. An effective literature search should be performed by using a structured search strategy in searching biomedical and CAM databases, such as the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM Citation Index). Few standard tools are recommended to evaluate the quality of CAM studies, i.e. the CONSORT extension for herbal interventions and STRICTA for RCTs of acupuncture. Additionally, some guidelines for designing RCTs in Chinese herbal medicine (CHM) can also be adopted to critique CAM literature. A clinical decision on choosing optimal CAM for patient care should be based on the current best evidence emerged from the EBM process.

scholarly journals An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for infantile colic

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachel Perry ◽  
Verity Leach ◽  
Chris Penfold ◽  
Philippa Davies
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Infantile Colic ◽  
Breastfed Infants ◽  
Randomised Controlled ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

Abstract Background Infantile colic is a distressing condition characterised by excessive crying in the first few months of life. The aim of this research was to update the synthesis of evidence of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) research literature on infantile colic and establish what evidence is currently available. Methods Medline, Embase and AMED (via Ovid), Web of Science and Central via Cochrane library were searched from their inception to September 2018. Google Scholar and OpenGrey were searched for grey literature and PROSPERO for ongoing reviews. Published systematic reviews that included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of infants aged up to 1 year, diagnosed with infantile colic using standard diagnostic criteria, were eligible. Reviews of RCTs that assessed the effectiveness of any individual CAM therapy were included. Three reviewers were involved in data extraction and quality assessment using the AMSTAR-2 scale and risk of bias using the ROBIS tool. Results Sixteen systematic reviews were identified. Probiotics, fennel extract and spinal manipulation show promise to alleviate symptoms of colic, although some concerns remain. Acupuncture and soy are currently not recommended. The majority of the reviews were assessed as having high or unclear risk of bias and low confidence in the findings. Conclusion There is clearly a need for larger and more methodologically sound RCTs to be conducted on the effectiveness of some CAM therapies for IC. Particular focus on probiotics in non-breastfed infants is pertinent. Systematic review registration PROSPERO: CRD42018092966.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document