Table 5 Quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine systematic reviews and comparative conventional medicine systematic reviews
| Â | Â | Matched reviews | Â | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Question | Complementary and Alternative Medicine Reviews (n = 47) n (%) | Complementary and Alternative Medicine Reviews (n = 17) n (%) | Comparative Conventional Medicine Reviews (n = 19) n (%) | p value |
1. Were the search method used to find evidence reported? | 24 (51) | 12 (71) | 10 (53) | 0.270 |
2. Was the search for evidence reasonably comprehensive? | 19 (40) | 7(41) | 6(32) | 0.549 |
3. Were the criteria for deciding which studies to include in the overview reported? | 34 (72) | 12 (71) | 8(42) | 0.086 |
4. Was bias in the selection of studies avoided? | 10 (21) | 5(29) | 5(26) | 0.836 |
5. Were the criteria used for assessing the validity of the included studies reported? | 24 (51) | 9(53) | 5(26) | 0.101 |
6. Was the validity of all the studies referred to in the text assessed using appropriate criteria? | 17 (36) | 7(41) | 6(32) | 0.549 |
7. Were the methods to combine the findings of the relevant studies reported? | 21 (64)1 | 7 (70)4 | 6 (55)3 | 0.466 |
8. Were the findings of the relevant studies combined appropriately relative to the primary question the overview addresses? | 25 (81)2 | 8 (80)3 | 7 (64)3 | 0.407 |
9. Were the conclusions made by the author(s) supported by the data and/or analysis reported in the overview? | 36 (77) | 12 (71) | 6(33) | 0.021 |
10. How would you rate the scientific quality of this overview?4 | 3 (2, 4) | 3 (2,4) | 3 (2, 3.5) | 0.752 |