[Omeo33] Art 0854 - J Clin Epidemiol, 2005, 58 (8), 763-768

[Gino Santini]

For randomized controlled trials, the quality of reports of 
complementary and alternative medicine was as good as reports of 
conventional medicine
Terry P. Klassen, Ba' Pham, Margaret L. Lawsond and David Moher

Objective - To compare the quality of reporting of reports randomized 
controlled trials (RCTs) published in English and in languages other 
than English (LOE), and to determine whether there were differences 
between conventional medicine (CM) and complementary and alternative 
medicine (CAM) reports.
Study Design and Setting - We examined more than 600 RCTs associated 
with 125 systematic reviews. We extracted characteristics of each RCT 
using a standardized data collection form. We assessed quality using 
the Jadad scale and the adequacy of allocation concealment.
Results - There were only minor differences in the quality of reports 
of RCTs published in English compared with other languages (median 
quality score of 3 vs. 2, P = .10), and the quality of reports of CAM 
RCTs was similar to the CM reports (median score of 3 vs. 2, P = 
.14). There was no effect of language of publication on quality of 
reporting for CM trials (median score of 2 vs. 2, P = .12). Among CAM 
trials, however, overall quality scores were higher for reports in 
English than for reports in other languages (median score of 3 vs. 2, 
P = .04).
Conclusion - The overall quality of reports published in languages 
other than English is similar to that of English-language reports. 
Moreover, the overall quality of reporting of RCTs of CAM 
interventions is as good as that for CM interventions.

Disponibile il full-text su richiesta
-- 

=== mailto:g.santini a ismo.it