Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 3 Critical appraisal scores for publications reporting on the barriers to the conduct of research in CAM

From: Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review

Study Database Criterion 1 Criterion 2 Criterion 3 Criterion 4 Criterion 5 Criterion 6 Criterion 7 Total Score
Ahn et al. 2010 [45] Embase Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Bensoussan & Lewith 2004 [39] Embase Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Ernst 1999 [40] Amed Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Ernst 2003 [43] Google scholar Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Evans 2007 [47] Google Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Giordano, Engebretson & Garcia 2005 [44] Embase Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Jonas 2005 [42] Amed Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Lewith & Holgate 2000 [41] Amed Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Long & Mercer 1999 [49] Amed Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Nahin & Strauss 2001 [48] Google scholar Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Rosner 2000 [35] Cinahl Y Y N/A Y N Y Y 5/7
Shekelle et al. 2005 [46] Amed Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Steel & McEwen 2014 [25] Cinahl Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
Wardle & Adams 2013 [34] Embase Y Y N/A Y Y Y Y 6/7
  1. Legend:
  2. Criterion 1. Is the source of the opinion clearly identified?
  3. Criterion 2. Does the source of the opinion have standing in the field of expertise?
  4. Criterion 3. Are the interests of patients/clients the central focus of the opinion?
  5. Criterion 4. Is the opinions basis in logic/experience clearly argued?
  6. Criterion 5. Is the argument developed analytical?
  7. Criterion 6. Is there reference to the extant literature/evidence and any in congruency with it logically defended?
  8. Criterion 7. Is the opinion supported by peers?
  9. Yes = Y = 1; No = N = 0; Unclear = UC = 0