This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Wider, B. Articles by Boddy, K. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Wider, B. Articles by Boddy, K. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Conducting Systematic Reviews of Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Common Pitfalls

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, United Kingdom, b.wider{at}exeter.ac.uk

Kate Boddy, MA

Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Universities of Exeter and Plymouth, Exeter, United Kingdom

Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the best tools for summarizing the evidence for or against the effectiveness of health care interventions. The principles and methods of SRs apply equally to both, mainstream and complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). Certain challenges are, however, more commonly encountered in CAM or even specific to it; this article is aimed at raising awareness of these among systematic reviewers. When searching for literature, specific issues relating to specialist databases, indexing, access, foreign language studies, and certain forms of publication bias need to be considered. Researchers also need to be aware of the difficulties of comparing CAM studies and address the variability between studies. CAM modalities are highly diversified and great variations exist in the standardization of herbal products and other dietary supplements. Individualization of treatment as well as different classifications of disease and different diagnostic methods need to be addressed. Expectation bias is high in CAM, and finding appropriate controls and blinding are often challenging. It is important that these issues are taken into account early on in the planning stages of an SR so that proper consideration can be given to the search strategies, inclusion/exclusion criteria and methods of analysis with the overall aim of reducing bias.

Key Words: systematic reviews • complementary and alternative medicine • search strategy • variability

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 32, No. 4, 417-430 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0163278709346818


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?