A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTAR
The numbers of herbal medicine systematic reviews (SR) are increasing, and reviews need to be good quality to inform practice and research. This study assesses the quality of herbal medicine SR and makes recommendations to those reading and writing them. Two open datasets from published meta-reviews...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Elsevier
2022-11-01
|
| Series: | Phytomedicine Plus |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667031322001592 |
| _version_ | 1811185444176527360 |
|---|---|
| author | Vivien Rolfe |
| author_facet | Vivien Rolfe |
| author_sort | Vivien Rolfe |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The numbers of herbal medicine systematic reviews (SR) are increasing, and reviews need to be good quality to inform practice and research. This study assesses the quality of herbal medicine SR and makes recommendations to those reading and writing them. Two open datasets from published meta-reviews were used as a sample, in which R-AMSTAR (Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) was used to assess the method quality of 94 SR. This scrutinises 11 domains including search strategy, risk of bias and other components, and compiles a score. The datasets were examined in Microsoft Excel.For the herbs studied, the numbers of SRs published had increased over time but quality standards had not altered. Reviews published with specialist groups and those with meta-analyses were higher quality. Overall, some methodological steps were performed well such as article searching. Other steps like pre-registering a protocol and providing a clear basis for selecting articles to assess could be enhanced.To conclude, the quality of SR was variable in this sample, on par with other medical areas. The use of quality assurance tools could help improve authors’ skills, although some aspects of quality assessed were influenced by the complexity of botanical material and herbal medicine. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T13:29:38Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-18fb02b68e104808a2e4514db32cdcbf |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 2667-0313 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T13:29:38Z |
| publishDate | 2022-11-01 |
| publisher | Elsevier |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Phytomedicine Plus |
| spelling | doaj.art-18fb02b68e104808a2e4514db32cdcbf2022-12-22T04:21:52ZengElsevierPhytomedicine Plus2667-03132022-11-0124100380A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTARVivien Rolfe0Pukka Herbs Ltd, Block C, The Chocolate Factory, Keynsham BS31 2GN, United KingdomThe numbers of herbal medicine systematic reviews (SR) are increasing, and reviews need to be good quality to inform practice and research. This study assesses the quality of herbal medicine SR and makes recommendations to those reading and writing them. Two open datasets from published meta-reviews were used as a sample, in which R-AMSTAR (Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews) was used to assess the method quality of 94 SR. This scrutinises 11 domains including search strategy, risk of bias and other components, and compiles a score. The datasets were examined in Microsoft Excel.For the herbs studied, the numbers of SRs published had increased over time but quality standards had not altered. Reviews published with specialist groups and those with meta-analyses were higher quality. Overall, some methodological steps were performed well such as article searching. Other steps like pre-registering a protocol and providing a clear basis for selecting articles to assess could be enhanced.To conclude, the quality of SR was variable in this sample, on par with other medical areas. The use of quality assurance tools could help improve authors’ skills, although some aspects of quality assessed were influenced by the complexity of botanical material and herbal medicine.http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667031322001592Herbal medicineBotanicalsEvidence-based herbal medicineSystematic reviewQualityR-AMSTAR |
| spellingShingle | Vivien Rolfe A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTAR Phytomedicine Plus Herbal medicine Botanicals Evidence-based herbal medicine Systematic review Quality R-AMSTAR |
| title | A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTAR |
| title_full | A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTAR |
| title_fullStr | A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTAR |
| title_full_unstemmed | A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTAR |
| title_short | A quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using R-AMSTAR |
| title_sort | quality assessment of a sample of herbal medicine systematic reviews using r amstar |
| topic | Herbal medicine Botanicals Evidence-based herbal medicine Systematic review Quality R-AMSTAR |
| url | http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667031322001592 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT vivienrolfe aqualityassessmentofasampleofherbalmedicinesystematicreviewsusingramstar AT vivienrolfe qualityassessmentofasampleofherbalmedicinesystematicreviewsusingramstar |