Table 5.

Quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine systematic reviews and comparative conventional medicine systematic reviews

		Matched reviews
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

1 Percentage calculated after removing those systematic reviews that were not applicable (n=33).

2 Percentage calculated after removing those systematic reviews that were not applicable (n=31).

3 Percentage calculated after removing those systematic reviews that were not applicable (n=11).

4 Median and 95% confidence intervals