系统评价综合医疗保健的挑战。

Integrative medicine insights Pub Date : 2013-06-27 Print Date: 2013-01-01 DOI:10.4137/IMI.S11570
Ian D Coulter, Raheleh Khorsan, Cindy Crawford, An-Fu Hsiao
{"title":"系统评价综合医疗保健的挑战。","authors":"Ian D Coulter,&nbsp;Raheleh Khorsan,&nbsp;Cindy Crawford,&nbsp;An-Fu Hsiao","doi":"10.4137/IMI.S11570","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article is based on an extensive review of integrative medicine (IM) and integrative health care (IHC). Since there is no general agreement of what constitutes IM/IHC, several major problems were identified that make the review of work in this field problematic. In applying the systematic review methodology, we found that many of those captured articles that used the term integrative medicine were in actuality referring to adjunctive, complementary, or supplemental medicine. The objective of this study was to apply a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the results of a systematic review of IM and IHC will differ according to what inclusion criteria is used based on the definition of IM/IHC. By analyzing 4 different scenarios, the authors show that, due to unclear usage of these terms, results vary dramatically, exposing an inconsistent literature base for this field. </p>","PeriodicalId":89565,"journal":{"name":"Integrative medicine insights","volume":"8 ","pages":"19-28"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2013-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4137/IMI.S11570","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Challenges of systematic reviewing integrative health care.\",\"authors\":\"Ian D Coulter,&nbsp;Raheleh Khorsan,&nbsp;Cindy Crawford,&nbsp;An-Fu Hsiao\",\"doi\":\"10.4137/IMI.S11570\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This article is based on an extensive review of integrative medicine (IM) and integrative health care (IHC). Since there is no general agreement of what constitutes IM/IHC, several major problems were identified that make the review of work in this field problematic. In applying the systematic review methodology, we found that many of those captured articles that used the term integrative medicine were in actuality referring to adjunctive, complementary, or supplemental medicine. The objective of this study was to apply a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the results of a systematic review of IM and IHC will differ according to what inclusion criteria is used based on the definition of IM/IHC. By analyzing 4 different scenarios, the authors show that, due to unclear usage of these terms, results vary dramatically, exposing an inconsistent literature base for this field. </p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":89565,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Integrative medicine insights\",\"volume\":\"8 \",\"pages\":\"19-28\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2013-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.4137/IMI.S11570\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Integrative medicine insights\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.4137/IMI.S11570\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2013/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Print\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Integrative medicine insights","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4137/IMI.S11570","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2013/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Print","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

本文是基于综合医学(IM)和综合保健(IHC)的广泛回顾。由于对什么是IM/IHC没有普遍的一致意见,因此确定了几个主要问题,使审查这一领域的工作成为问题。在应用系统评价方法时,我们发现许多使用“整合医学”一词的文章实际上指的是辅助、补充或补充医学。本研究的目的是应用敏感性分析,以证明根据IM/IHC定义使用的纳入标准,IM和IHC的系统评价结果将如何不同。通过分析4种不同的情景,作者表明,由于这些术语的使用不明确,结果差异很大,暴露了该领域的文献基础不一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Challenges of systematic reviewing integrative health care.

Challenges of systematic reviewing integrative health care.

This article is based on an extensive review of integrative medicine (IM) and integrative health care (IHC). Since there is no general agreement of what constitutes IM/IHC, several major problems were identified that make the review of work in this field problematic. In applying the systematic review methodology, we found that many of those captured articles that used the term integrative medicine were in actuality referring to adjunctive, complementary, or supplemental medicine. The objective of this study was to apply a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the results of a systematic review of IM and IHC will differ according to what inclusion criteria is used based on the definition of IM/IHC. By analyzing 4 different scenarios, the authors show that, due to unclear usage of these terms, results vary dramatically, exposing an inconsistent literature base for this field.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信