Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2002:2:3.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2431-2-3. Epub 2002 Feb 27.

Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine

David Moher  1 , Karen Soeken, Margaret Sampson, Leah Ben-Porat, Brian Berman
Affiliations

Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine

David Moher et al. BMC Pediatr. 2002.

Abstract

Objective: To examine the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) systematic reviews in the pediatric population. We also examined whether there were differences in the quality of reports of a subset of CAM reviews compared to reviews using conventional interventions.

Methods: We assessed the quality of reports of 47 CAM systematic reviews and 19 reviews evaluating a conventional intervention. The quality of each report was assessed using a validated 10-point scale.

Results: Authors were particularly good at reporting: eligibility criteria for including primary studies, combining the primary studies for quantitative analysis appropriately, and basing their conclusions on the data included in the review. Reviewers were weak in reporting: how they avoided bias in the selection of primary studies, and how they evaluated the validity of the primary studies. Overall the reports achieved 43% (median = 3) of their maximum possible total score. The overall quality of reporting was similar for CAM reviews and conventional therapy ones.

Conclusions: Evidence based health care continues to make important contributions to the well being of children. To ensure the pediatric community can maximize the potential use of these interventions, it is important to ensure that systematic reviews are conducted and reported at the highest possible quality. Such reviews will be of benefit to a broad spectrum of interested stakeholders.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow of citations and articles through the phases of screening and eligibility evaluation.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Davidoff F, Haynes RB, Sackett D, Smith R. Evidence-based medicine: a new journal to help doctors identify the information they need. BMJ. 1995;310:1085–6. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. JAMA. 1955;159:1602–6. - PubMed
    1. Sacks HS, Reitman D, Pagano D, Kupelnick B. Meta-analysis: an update. Mt Sinai J. 1996;63:216–24. - PubMed
    1. Shea B, Moher D, Pham B, Graham I, Tugwell P. The quality of reporting of meta-analyses. Evaluation & The Health Professions. 2002;25:116–129. doi: 10.1177/0163278702025001008. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Jadad AR, Moher M, Browman GP, Booker L, Sigouin C, Fuentes M, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses on treatment of asthma: critical evaluation. BMJ. 2000;320:537–40. doi: 10.1136/bmj.320.7234.537. - DOI - PMC - PubMed