An Overview of Publications of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research

2022 ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Mayuree Tangkiatkumjai
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Language Bias ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Cam Use

This chapter presents an overview of the quantity and quality of clinical research in CAM and publication bias. Descriptive studies and their systematic reviews on CAM, e.g., prevalence and reasons for CAM use, have been widely conducted worldwide. The findings of the efficacy of herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture for treating various illnesses, have been highly published. Publications of CAM safety are limited. A number of clinical studies of CAM in treating kidney diseases were lower than other illnesses. Studies of Ayurveda and other CAMs are still lacking. The quality of CAM publications is described based on systematic reviews of assessing CAM publications. Publication bias is explained in terms of selective publications and location bias, language bias and conflict of interest. The mainstream journals are more likely to publish positive findings. Predatory open access and recommendations for assessing predatory journals are addressed in this chapter.

An Overview of Publications of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research

2017 ◽  
pp. 43-59
Author(s):  
Mayuree Tangkiatkumjai
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Conflict Of Interest ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Language Bias ◽  
Predatory Journals ◽  
Medicine Research ◽  
Cam Use

This chapter presents an overview of the quantity and quality of clinical research in CAM and publication bias. Descriptive studies and their systematic reviews on CAM, e.g., prevalence and reasons for CAM use, have been widely conducted worldwide. The findings of the efficacy of herbal medicine, traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture for treating various illnesses, have been highly published. Publications of CAM safety are limited. A number of clinical studies of CAM in treating kidney diseases were lower than other illnesses. Studies of Ayurveda and other CAMs are still lacking. The quality of CAM publications is described based on systematic reviews of assessing CAM publications. Publication bias is explained in terms of selective publications and location bias, language bias and conflict of interest. The mainstream journals are more likely to publish positive findings. Predatory open access and recommendations for assessing predatory journals are addressed in this chapter.

scholarly journals An evidence mapping of systematic reviews and meta-analysis on traditional Chinese medicine for ulcerative colitis

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Yu-Xin Sun ◽  
Xiao Wang ◽  
Xing Liao ◽  
Jing Guo ◽  
Wen-Bin Hou ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Ulcerative Colitis ◽  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Route Of Administration ◽  
Current Evidence ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Evidence Mapping

Abstract Background Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) has been a proposed treatment option for ulcerative colitis (UC), however it has been difficult to understand the breadth and depth of evidence as various Chinese medicine therapies may produce effects differently. The aim of this evidence mapping is to visually understand the available evidence in the use of TCM in the treatment of UC, and to identify gaps in evidence to inform priorities of future research. Methods A systematic electronic literature search of six databases were performed to identify systematic reviews (SRs) on different Chinese medicine therapies in the treatment in UC. Methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using AMSTAR 2. Results The mapping was based on 73 SRs, which included nine interventions that met eligibility criteria. The quality of the included SRs was very low. The diseases stages of patients with UC varied greatly, from active to remission, to non-acute outbreak, to not reported. The results mostly favored the method of intervention. Oral administration combined with enema was the most widely used route of administration in secondary research. Conclusion Based on the current evidence, the treatment of UC with TCM can only be recommended cautiously. A majority of included SRs did not report the location of the disease, the disease classification, and the route of administration of the intervention. Further research is needed on the effectiveness of Chinese medicine alone in the treatment of UC. The effectiveness of combined Chinese and conventional medicine combined with different routes of administration cannot be confirmed. Attention should be paid to the methodological quality of the systematic review. Unifies the outcome indicators used in the evaluation of effectiveness.

scholarly journals Evidence in crisis: a closer look into the quality of published systematic reviews in the cardiology literature

2021 ◽  
Vol 42 (Supplement_1) ◽  
Author(s):  
A Abushouk ◽  
I Yunusa ◽  
A O Elmehrath ◽  
A M Elmatboly ◽  
A Saad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Impact Factor ◽  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
European Heart Journal ◽  
Reporting Standards ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Level Of Evidence ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Direct Head

Abstract Background Systematic reviews are usually considered as the highest level of evidence and are increasingly used in shaping cardiology policies and guidelines. However, as the rate of publishing systematic reviews increases annually, there are rising concerns regarding their quality and reporting standards. Purpose The current analysis provides an insight into the quality of published systematic reviews in cardiology and provides recommendations for researchers, clinicians, and stakeholders in this regard. Methods Using a comprehensive Medline/PubMed search, we retrieved all systematic reviews, published between 2009 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor as per the Clarivate Analytics 2019 Journal Impact Factor List (Circulation, European Heart Journal, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Circulation Research, and JAMA Cardiology). We assessed the methodological characteristics, eligibility criteria, reporting standards, as well as review quality scores according to the AMSTAR tool. Results Among 352 retrieved reviews, 275 (75.3%) performed direct head-to-head analysis and 164 (46.6%) included only clinical trials. The median numbers of searched databases and included studies were 3 (IQR: 2, 3) and 13 (IQR: 7, 30). The primary outcomes were often hard clinical endpoints as mortality (39.2%) and stroke (11.9%). 64 (18.2%) registered their protocol, 208 (58.4%) used validated tools for risk of bias assessment, 177 (52.3%) assessed for publication bias, and 221 (62.8%) adhered to the PRISMA checklist. Thirty-five reviews detected significant publication bias, which was significantly associated with heterogeneity of the primary outcome. The AMSTAR quality scores were low or critically low in 71% of evaluated reviews. Further, 87 (24.7%) did not report on whether they received funding or not, 33 (9.4%) reported receiving no funding, and 232 adequately reported on their funding sources [70 (19.9%) from governmental/academic sources, 120 (34.1%) from pharmaceutical companies, and 42 (11.9%) from both sources]. analysis showed that reviews with advanced statistical analysis, those that included RCTs, adhered to the PRISMA checklist, or had higher AMSTAR quality scores had significantly higher citation metrics (p<0.05). Conclusion Due to the widespread low quality and poor reporting in cardiovascular systematic reviews, clinicians should be educated on the value of methodological quality in interpreting systematic review findings. In addition, academic societies and guideline writing groups should implement rigorous critical appraisal and peer review policies to improve the synthesis and utilization of systematic reviews in evidence-based cardiovascular medicine. FUNDunding Acknowledgement Type of funding sources: None.

scholarly journals Index of Independence

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. p1
Author(s):  
Ilija Barukčić
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Study Design ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Scientific Research ◽  
Thought Experiments ◽  
Statistical Measures ◽  
Degree Of Certainty ◽  
Meta Analyses

Objective. Under certain circumstances, the results of multiple investigations – particularly, rigorously-designed trials, can be summarized by systematic reviews and meta-analyses. However, the results of properly conducted meta-analyses can but need not be stronger than single investigations, if (publication) bias is not considered to a necessary extent. Methods. In assessing the significance of publication bias due to study design simple to handle statistical measures for quantifying publication bias are developed and discussed which can be used as a characteristic of a meta-analysis. In addition, these measures may permit comparisons of publication biases between different meta-analyses. Results. Various properties and the performance of the new measures of publication bias are studied and illustrated using simulations and clearly described thought experiments. As a result, individual studies can be reviewed with a higher degree of certainty. Conclusions. Publication bias due to study design is a serious problem in scientific research, which can affect the validity and generalization of conclusions. The index of unfairness and the index of independence are of use to quantify publication bias and to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

General Approach to Evaluating Beneficial and Adverse Effects of CAM Use in Kidney Diseases

2017 ◽  
pp. 60-99
Author(s):  
Mayuree Tangkiatkumjai ◽  
Chatchai Kreepala
Keyword(s):  
Herbal Medicine ◽  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Serum Creatinine ◽  
Kidney Diseases ◽  
Kidney Injury ◽  
Electrolyte Imbalance ◽  
Naranjo Algorithm ◽  
Sf 36 ◽  
Cam Use

This chapter will address the issue of how to evaluate benefits and nephrotoxicity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in chronic kidney disease, dialysis therapy, kidney transplantation, and urolithiasis. Serum creatinine, proteinuria and estimated glomerular filtration rate are standard parameters to assess kidney function. Serum creatinine is used in evaluating acute kidney injury, which is the most common nephropathy from using herbal medicine. Assessment of electrolyte imbalance and urolithiasis is included in this chapter. The modified Naranjo algorithm has been proposed as a way to evaluate renal adverse effects of herbal medicine due to a lack of disease-specific causality assessments in herbal use. Measurement of humanistic outcomes is mentioned in this chapter. The SF-36 is commonly used in evaluating quality of life in CAM users and patients with kidney diseases. The MYMOP2 is to assess individual's symptoms in CAM use and might be used in this population.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Traditional Chinese Medicine Must Search Chinese Databases to Reduce Language Bias

2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xin-Yin Wu ◽  
Jin-Ling Tang ◽  
Chen Mao ◽  
Jin-Qiu Yuan ◽  
Ying Qin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Selection Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Language Bias ◽  
Randomized Controlled ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
Almost All

Systematic reviews (SRs) that fail to search non-English databases may miss relevant studies and cause selection bias. The bias may be particularly severe in SRs of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) as most randomized controlled trials (RCT) in TCM are published and accessible only in Chinese. In this study we investigated how often Chinese databases were not searched in SRs of TCM, how many trials were missed, and whether a bias may occur if Chinese databases were not searched. We searched 5 databases in English and 3 in Chinese for RCTs of Chinese herbal medicine for coronary artery disease and found that 96.64% (115/119) eligible studies could be identified only from Chinese databases. In a random sample of 80 Cochrane reviews on TCM, we found that Chinese databases were only searched in 43 or 53.75%, in which almost all the included studies were identified from Chinese databases. We also compared SRs of the same topic and found that they may draw a different conclusion if Chinese databases were not searched. In conclusion, an overwhelmingly high percentage of eligible trials on TCM could only be identified in Chinese databases. Reviewers in TCM are suggested to search Chinese databases to reduce potential selection bias.

Traditional Chinese Medicine Injection for Angina Pectoris: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

2014 ◽  
Vol 42 (01) ◽  
pp. 37-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jing Luo ◽  
Qinghua Shang ◽  
Mei Han ◽  
Keji Chen ◽  
Hao Xu
Keyword(s):  
Chinese Medicine ◽  
Angina Pectoris ◽  
Traditional Chinese Medicine ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Reporting Quality ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Positive Effects ◽  
Potential Benefits

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) injection is widely used to treat angina pectoris in China. This overview aims to systematically summarize the general characteristics of systematic reviews (SRs) on TCM injection in treating angina, and assess the methodological and reporting quality of these reviews. We searched PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library and four Chinese databases from inception until March 2013. Data were extracted according to a preset form. The AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists were used to explore the methodological quality and reporting characteristics of included reviews, respectively. All data analyses were descriptive. 46 SRs involving over 57,463 participants with angina reviewing 23 kinds of TCM injections were included. The main outcomes evaluated in the reviews were symptoms (43/46, 93.5%), surrogate outcomes (42/46, 91.3%) and adverse events (41/46, 87.0%). Few reviews evaluated endpoints (7/46, 15.2%) and quality of life (1/46, 2.2%). One third of the reviews (16/46, 34.8%) drew definitely positive conclusions while the others (30/46, 65.2%) suggested potential benefits mainly in symptoms, electrocardiogram and adverse events. With many serious flaws such as lack of a protocol and inappropriate data synthesis, the overall methodological and reporting quality of the reviews was limited. While many SRs of TCM injection on the treatment of angina suggested potential benefits or definitely positive effects, stakeholders should not accept the findings of these reviews uncritically due to the limited methodological and reporting quality. Future SRs should be appropriately conducted and reported according to international standards such as AMSTAR and PRISMA, rather than published in large numbers.

scholarly journals Quality Assessment of Published Systematic Reviews in High Impact Cardiology Journals: Revisiting the Evidence Pyramid

2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Abdelrahman I. Abushouk ◽  
Ismaeel Yunusa ◽  
Ahmed O. Elmehrath ◽  
Abdelmagid M. Elmatboly ◽  
Shady Hany Fayek ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Outcome ◽  
Quality Score ◽  
High Impact ◽  
Outcome Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Complex Design ◽  
Statistical Heterogeneity

Objective: Systematic reviews are increasingly used as sources of evidence in clinical cardiology guidelines. In the present study, we aimed to assess the quality of published systematic reviews in high impact cardiology journals.Methods: We searched PubMed for systematic reviews published between 2010 and 2019 in five general cardiology journals with the highest impact factor (according to Clarivate Analytics 2019). We extracted data on eligibility criteria, methodological characteristics, bias assessments, and sources of funding. Further, we assessed the quality of retrieved reviews using the AMSTAR tool.Results: A total of 352 systematic reviews were assessed. The AMSTAR quality score was low or critically low in 71% (95% CI: 65.7–75.4) of the assessed reviews. Sixty-four reviews (18.2%, 95% CI: 14.5–22.6) registered/published their protocol. Only 221 reviews (62.8%, 95% CI: 57.6–67.7) reported adherence to the EQUATOR checklists, 208 reviews (58.4%, 95% CI: 53.9–64.1) assessed the risk of bias in the included studies, and 177 reviews (52.3%, 95% CI: 45.1–55.5) assessed the risk of publication bias in their primary outcome analysis. The primary outcome was statistically significant in 274 (79.6%, 95% CI: 75.1–83.6) and had statistical heterogeneity in 167 (48.5%, 95% CI: 43.3–53.8) reviews. The use and sources of external funding was not disclosed in 87 reviews (24.7%, 95% CI: 20.5–29.5). Data analysis showed that the existence of publication bias was significantly associated with statistical heterogeneity of the primary outcome and that complex design, larger sample size, and higher AMSTAR quality score were associated with higher citation metrics.Conclusion: Our analysis uncovered widespread gaps in conducting and reporting systematic reviews in cardiology. These findings highlight the importance of rigorous editorial and peer review policies in systematic review publishing, as well as education of the investigators and clinicians on the synthesis and interpretation of evidence.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document