잠시만 기다려 주세요. 로딩중입니다.

Choose your shortcuts wisely: COVID-19 rapid reviews of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine

Integrative Medicine Research 2020년 9권 3호 p.5 ~ 5
Hunter Jennifer, Arentz Susan, Goldenberg Joshua Z., Yang Guoyan, Beardsley Jennifer, 이명수, Myers Stephen P.,
소속 상세정보
 ( Hunter Jennifer ) - Western Sydney University NICM Health Research Institute
 ( Arentz Susan ) - Western Sydney University NICM Health Research Institute
 ( Goldenberg Joshua Z. ) - National University of Natural Medicine Helfgott Research Institute
 ( Yang Guoyan ) - Western Sydney University NICM Health Research Institute
 ( Beardsley Jennifer ) - Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine Clinical Medicine Division
이명수 ( Lee Myeong-Soo ) - Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine Clinical Medicine Division
 ( Myers Stephen P. ) - Western Sydney University NICM Health Research Institute

Abstract


Background: The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an explosion of rapid reviews geared towards providing time sensitive answers for clinical and policy decision-makers. Rapid reviews (RRs) strike a balance between rigour and rapidity to minimise bias and optimise transparency within specified constraints. Methods: This review article appraised the methods and reporting standards of a convenience sample of RR protocols and RRs of COVID-19 clinical management questions, published in the first six-months of 2020. Inclusion criteria were all RR protocols evaluating traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) registered on PROSPERO, and all RRs indexed on PubMed or published on the Oxford COVID-19 Evidence Service. A purpose-specific 9-item reporting checklist reflecting recommended minimum requirements for RRs was applied. Findings were synthesised and narrated in the context of methodological considerations for conducting and reporting RRs of TCIM. Results: Included studies were five RR protocols of TCIM and 16 RRs, of which five considered TCIM. Wide variations in RR methods were proposed or applied, as were the reporting standards. All five RRs that evaluated TCIM had the lowest reporting standards that limited reproducibility and transparency. Despite accepted recommendations, most RRs did not publish a protocol. Conclusions: We propose that specific research disciplines, such as TCIM, have a uniqueness that may lead to unacceptable outputs if minimum methodological standards are not applied. The recommended minimum requirements will optimise the credibility of rapid reviews of TCIM and limit the risk of prematurely disregarding a potentially effective intervention.

키워드

SARS-CoV-2; Rapid review; Systematic review; Evidence synthesis; Methodology

원문 및 링크아웃 정보

등재저널 정보