The work has shown that IRT images of an animal's eye temperature may be a useful proxy for core temperature and could be used to detect pyrexia as an indicator for selecting animals for closer examination. This conclusion supports the observation by Dunbar [10] who compared high quality thermograms of the eye (n = 16) to body temperature and found them not to be different (p = 0.19). However, further work is required with animals infected with FMDV to confirm this. Cochrane Systematic Reviews of Chinese Herbal Medicines: An Overview OBJECTIVES: Our study had two objectives: a) to systematically identify all existing systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) published in Cochrane Library; b) to assess the methodological quality of included reviews. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: We performed a systematic search of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR, Issue 5, 2010) to identify all reviews of CHM. A total of fifty-eight reviews were eligible for our study. Twenty-one of the included reviews had at least one Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioner as its co-author. 7 reviews didn't include any primary study, the remaining reviews (n = 51) included a median of 9 studies and 936 participants. 50% of reviews were last assessed as up-to-date prior to 2008. The questions addressed by 39 reviews were broad in scope, in which 9 reviews combined studies with different herbal medicines. For OQAQ, the mean of overall quality score (item 10) was 5.05 (95% CI; 4.58-5.52). All reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies, 16% of included primary studies used adequate sequence generation and 7% used adequate allocation concealment. Of the 51 nonempty reviews, 23 reviews were reported as being inconclusive, while 27 concluded that there might be benefit of CHM, which was limited by the poor quality or inadequate quantity of included studies. 58 reviews reported searching a median of seven electronic databases, while 10 reviews did not search any Chinese database. CONCLUSIONS: Now CDSR has included large numbers of CHM reviews, our study identified some areas which could be improved, such as almost half of included reviews did not have the participation of TCM practitioners and were not up-to-date according to Cochrane criteria, some reviews pooled the results of different herbal medicines and ignored the searching of Chinese databases. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is an essential part of the healthcare system in several Asian countries, and is considered a complementary or alternative medical system in most Western countries [1] . Chinese herbal medicines (CHM) are an essential part of TCM [2] . The 2002 National Health Interview Survey showed that 18.6% of adults used CHM in the United States, while it was 12.1% in 1997 [3] . With the increased use of CHM, questions arise from clinicians, patients, and policymakers as to the effectiveness of these interventions [4] . In an era of evidence-based healthcare, systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are becoming increasingly important as a source of evidence for decision-making. As the number of systematic reviews of CHM increase, the quality of which has been highlighted and called into question. Some studies have assessed the quality of CHM reviews published in Chinese journals, in general, they have been criticized for lacking a comprehensive search for clinical trials, ignoring the characteristics of TCM, using inappropriate criteria to assess the methodological quality of included studies, and addressing too broadly defined questions [5] [6] [7] . All [8] these aspects could have contributed to a poor quality review.