Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Traditional medicine (TM) therapies originating in East Asia are widely used across the world. The evidence for therapies such as acupuncture, herbal medicine, and tai chi requires assessment in rigorous systematic reviews, and it is important to understand any obstacles to conducting these reviews.
Objectives: To identify barriers to the registration and conduct of Cochrane Reviews of TM therapies.
Methods: We surveyed Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) to ascertain barriers to registration of TM reviews, and identify perceived difficulties in the conduct of the reviews. We also asked what steps the TM research community could take to address these problems.
Results: We contacted 53 CRGs and received 48 responses on behalf of 49 (49/53; 92%) CRGs. Most respondents (45/48; 94%) reported that their CRG currently had at least one review on a TM therapy, but few CRGs (10/48; 21%) had editorial TM expertise. The greatest barriers to registration were that TM was not applicable to CRG high priority conditions (21/48; 44%) and that there was difficulty in assessing mechanisms or components of TM therapies (21/48; 44%). The most commonly identified difficulties in carrying out TM reviews were insufficient characterization of interventions (31/48; 65%), too few good quality trials (29/48; 60%), and difficulties in finding peer reviewers (26/48; 54%). Difficulties in searching the literature and working across languages were also mentioned frequently. Improving the conduct of and access to TM trials, assisting with finding appropriate peer reviewers and providing language support were all helpful actions endorsed by more than 50% of respondents.
Conclusions: Difficulty in assessing the components and mechanisms of TM therapies is a major barrier to the registration and conduct of Cochrane Reviews of TM. The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field has partnered with Cochrane colleagues and TM researchers outside Cochrane to work on this and other identified issues with TM reviews. We will report on the details and progress of several activities aimed at addressing the barriers to good quality TM reviews.
Objectives: To identify barriers to the registration and conduct of Cochrane Reviews of TM therapies.
Methods: We surveyed Cochrane Review Groups (CRGs) to ascertain barriers to registration of TM reviews, and identify perceived difficulties in the conduct of the reviews. We also asked what steps the TM research community could take to address these problems.
Results: We contacted 53 CRGs and received 48 responses on behalf of 49 (49/53; 92%) CRGs. Most respondents (45/48; 94%) reported that their CRG currently had at least one review on a TM therapy, but few CRGs (10/48; 21%) had editorial TM expertise. The greatest barriers to registration were that TM was not applicable to CRG high priority conditions (21/48; 44%) and that there was difficulty in assessing mechanisms or components of TM therapies (21/48; 44%). The most commonly identified difficulties in carrying out TM reviews were insufficient characterization of interventions (31/48; 65%), too few good quality trials (29/48; 60%), and difficulties in finding peer reviewers (26/48; 54%). Difficulties in searching the literature and working across languages were also mentioned frequently. Improving the conduct of and access to TM trials, assisting with finding appropriate peer reviewers and providing language support were all helpful actions endorsed by more than 50% of respondents.
Conclusions: Difficulty in assessing the components and mechanisms of TM therapies is a major barrier to the registration and conduct of Cochrane Reviews of TM. The Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field has partnered with Cochrane colleagues and TM researchers outside Cochrane to work on this and other identified issues with TM reviews. We will report on the details and progress of several activities aimed at addressing the barriers to good quality TM reviews.