Related Experiment Videos
Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews in pediatric complementary and alternative medicine
David Moher1, Karen Soeken, Margaret Sampson
1Thomas C. Chalmers Centre for Systematic Reviews, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario Research Institute Canada. dmoher@uottawa.ca
Insights
Systematic reviews on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) for children show similar reporting quality to conventional interventions. Improving reporting standards for CAM systematic reviews is crucial for evidence-based pediatric healthcare.
Area of Science:
- Pediatric Health Research
- Evidence-Based Medicine
- Systematic Review Methodology
Background:
- Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is increasingly used in pediatric care.
- High-quality systematic reviews are essential for evaluating CAM interventions for children.
- Assessing the reporting quality of CAM systematic reviews is critical for clinical decision-making.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate the reporting quality of systematic reviews on CAM interventions in pediatric populations.
- To compare the reporting quality of CAM systematic reviews with those of conventional interventions.
- To identify areas for improvement in the reporting of pediatric CAM systematic reviews.
Main Methods:
- A quality assessment of 47 CAM systematic reviews and 19 conventional intervention reviews was conducted.
- A validated 10-point scale was used to assess the quality of each review report.
- Key reporting elements such as eligibility criteria, bias assessment, and data synthesis were evaluated.
Main Results:
- Reviewers excelled in reporting eligibility criteria, quantitative analysis, and data-based conclusions.
- Weaknesses were identified in reporting bias avoidance and primary study validity assessment.
- Overall reporting quality was moderate (median 3/10 points), with no significant difference between CAM and conventional reviews.
Conclusions:
- High-quality systematic reviews are vital for maximizing the benefits of pediatric interventions.
- Improving the reporting standards of CAM systematic reviews will support evidence-based healthcare for children.
- Enhanced review quality benefits a wide range of stakeholders in pediatric healthcare.
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.