[Omeo33] Art 0855 - J Clin Epidemiol, 2005, 58 (8), 777-784

[Gino Santini]

Systematic reviews involving complementary and alternative medicine 
interventions had higher quality of reporting than conventional 
medicine reviews
Margaret L. Lawson, Ba' Pham, Terry P. Klassen and David Moher

Objective - To compare the quality of systematic reviews reported in 
English and in languages other than English, and to determine whether 
there are differences between conventional medicine (CM) and 
complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) reports.
Study Design and Setting - We used the Oxman and Guyatt (OG) scale to 
assess the quality of reporting in 130 systematic reviews: 50 were 
language-restricted, 32 were language-inclusive but only 
English-language (EL) trials contained (inclusive-EL), and 48 were 
language-inclusive and included trials published in languages other 
than English (inclusive-LOE). Of the 130 reviews, 105 addressed CM 
interventions and 25 addressed CAM interventions.
Results - Comparison of the systematic reviews showed that the 
quality of reporting and reporting characteristics are not affected 
by inclusion or exclusion of LOE; however, the quality of reporting 
of systematic reviews involving CAM interventions is higher than that 
of reviews focusing on CM interventions.
Conclusion - Informal comparison of the OG scale with the data 
collected on quality assessments showed that the OG scale performs 
well overall but may not identify important differences in 
comprehensiveness of the search strategy and avoidance of bias in 
study selection. Further research is required to determine the best 
methods for assessing quality of systematic reviews and whether the 
effect of language restrictions is dependent on the type of 
intervention (CM or CAM).

Disponibile il full-text su richiesta
-- 

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