Table 4. Comparison between RCTs already included in the SR and eligible Korean RCTs.

First author(year)	Condition	Type of database	Number of primary studies (Korean)	Author’s conclusion (quote)	SR’s result (+/−)	Newly Eligible Korean RCTs compared with previous SRs
						Number of RCT [ref]	Result(+/−)
Jang(2008) [1]	Erectile dysfunction	English, Korean, Chinese, Japanese	7(4)	… provide suggestive evidence	+	2[38], [39]	+
Kim(2011) [6]	Diabetes	English, Korean, Japanese	3(2)	…. effectiveness. is not convincing.	–	0	–
Jia(2012) [8]	Ischemic heart disease	English, Chinese	18(0)	… more effective than..further. to verify the efficacy.	+	0	+
An(2011) [9]	obstructive pulmonary	English, Chinese	12(0)	… show promising evidence … is uncertain due to potential risk of bias of.	+	0	+
Seida(2011) [10]	Common Cold	English	5(0)	. significantly reduced….insufficient evidence …	+	0	+
Seely(2008) [11]	Pregnancy and Lactation	English	Not clear	. conflicting evidence … no human studies.	–	Not clear	–
Buettner (2006) [12]	Cardiovascular	English	31(3)	.not support the use of. to treat cardiovascular risk factors.	+/−	0	+/−
Lee(2009) [13]	Alzheimer	English, Korean, Chinese	2(2)	The evidence…is scarce and inconclusive.	+/−	1[55]	+
Hur(2010) [14]	Hypertension	English, Korean, Chinese, Japanese	5(0)	show.significant. limited evidence …	+/−	0
Lee(2011) [3]	various conditions	English, Korean, Chinese	57(9)	…finding a strong positive potential….	+/−	22[26]–[31], [33], [38], [39], [41]–[45], [48]–[55]	+/−
Vogler(1999) [15]	various conditions	English	16(0)	……efficacy.is not established beyond reasonable doubt….	+/−	30[26]–[55]	+/−
Shergis(2012) [16]	various conditions	English	65(2)	. promising results,….implications for several diseases….	+/−	28[26]–[49], [52]–[55]	+/−

RCT: randomized controlled trial; SR: systematic review; +: positive; −: negative; +/−: unclear.