Scoping review of systematic reviews of complementary medicine for musculoskeletal and mental health conditions Clinical effectiveness of manual therapy for the management of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions: systematic review and update of UK evidence report Efficacy, tolerability and safety of cannabis‐based medicines for chronic pain management – An overview of systematic reviews Outcome Measures of Chinese Herbal Medicine for Hypertension: An Overview of Systematic Reviews Balneotherapy in medicine: A review Effectiveness of manual therapies: the UK evidence report Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for hypertension: An overview of systematic reviews. The Medical Review Article Revisited: Has the Science Improved? Effectiveness of workplace interventions in rehabilitating musculoskeletal disorders and preventing its consequences among workers with physical and sedentary employment: systematic review protocol [Reviews, systematic reviews, and essays in public health]. Evidence-based medicine and the challenge of low back pain: where are we now? The Cochrane Collaboration. All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more Safety and Efficacy of Acupuncture in Children: A Review of the Evidence Overview of Systematic Reviews: Yoga as a Therapeutic Intervention for Adults with Acute and Chronic Health Conditions Review article: Methodology for the ‘rapid review’ series on musculoskeletal injuries in the emergency department Systematic reviews in public health: old chestnuts and new challenges. Effectiveness of trigger point dry needling for multiple body regions: a systematic review Using Guasha to treat musculoskeletal pain: A systematic review of controlled clinical trials Review of randomised controlled trials of traditional Chinese medicine Development and evaluation of an instrument for the critical appraisal of randomized controlled trials of natural products Evidence-based behavioral medicine: What is it and how do we achieve it? Biofeedback for treatment of awake and sleep bruxism in adults: systematic review protocol
Objective To identify potentially effective complementary approaches for musculoskeletal (MSK)–mental health ( MH ) comorbidity , by synthesis ing evidence on effectiveness , cost-effectiveness and safety from systematic review s ( SRs ) . Design Scoping review of SRs . Methods We search ed literature data bases , registries and reference lists , and contacted key authors and professional organisations to identify SRs of r and omised controlled trials for complementary medicine for MSK or MH . Inclusion criteria were : published after 2004 , study ing adults , in English and scoring > 50 % on Assessing the Method ological Quality of Systematic Review s ( AMSTAR ) ; quality appraisal checklist ) . SRs were synthesis ed to identify research priorities , based on moderate/good quality evidence , sample size and indication of cost-effectiveness and safety . Results We included 84 MSK SRs and 27 MH SRs . Only one focused on MSK – MH comorbidity . Meditative approaches and yoga may improve MH outcomes in MSK population s. Yoga and tai chi had moderate/good evidence for MSK and MH conditions . SRs reported moderate/good quality evidence ( any comparator ) in a moderate/large population for :  low back pain ( LBP )  ( yoga , acupuncture , spinal manipulation/mobilisation , osteopathy ) , osteoarthritis ( OA ) ( acupuncture , tai chi ) , neck pain  ( acupuncture , manipulation/manual therapy ) , myofascial trigger point pain ( acupuncture ) , depression ( mindfulness-based stress reduction ( MBSR ) , meditation , tai chi , relaxation ) , anxiety ( meditation/MBSR , moving meditation , yoga ) , sleep disorders ( meditative/mind – body movement ) and stress/distress ( mindfulness ) . The majority of these complementary approaches had some evidence of safety — only three had evidence of harm . There was some evidence of cost-effectiveness for spinal manipulation/mobilisation and acupuncture for LBP , and manual therapy/manipulation for neck pain , but few SRs review ed cost-effectiveness and many found no data . Conclusions Only one SR studied MSK – MH comorbidity . Research priorities for complementary medicine for both MSK and MH ( LBP , OA , depression , anxiety and sleep problems ) are yoga , mindfulness and tai chi . Despite the large number of SRs and the prevalence of comorbidity , more high- quality , large r and omised controlled trials in comorbid population s are needed Background This systematic review up date d and extended the " UK evidence report " by Bronfort et al. ( Chiropr Osteopath 18:3 , 2010 ) with respect to conditions/ interventions that received an ' inconclusive ’ or ' negative ’ evidence rating or were not covered in the report . Methods A literature search of more than 10 general medical and specialised data bases was conducted in August 2011 and up date d in March 2013 . Systematic review s , primary comparative studies and qualitative studies of patients with musculoskeletal or non-musculoskeletal conditions treated with manual therapy and reporting clinical outcomes were included . Study quality was assessed using st and ardised instruments , studies were summarised , and the results were compared against the evidence ratings of Bronfort . These were either confirmed , up date d , or new categories not assessed by Bronfort were added . Results 25,539 records were found ; 178 new and additional studies were identified , of which 72 were systematic review s , 96 were r and omised controlled trials , and 10 were non-r and omised primary studies . Most ' inconclusive ’ or ' moderate ’ evidence ratings of the UK evidence report were confirmed . Evidence ratings changed in a positive direction from inconclusive to moderate evidence ratings in only three cases ( manipulation/mobilisation [ with exercise ] for rotator cuff disorder ; spinal mobilisation for cervicogenic headache ; and mobilisation for miscellaneous headache ) . In addition , evidence was identified on a large number of non-musculoskeletal conditions not previously considered ; most of this evidence was rated as inconclusive . Conclusions Overall , there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy . Most review ed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial method ological and clinical diversity . Areas requiring further research are highlighted Medicinal cannabis has already entered mainstream medicine in some countries . This systematic review ( SR ) aim ed at evaluating the efficacy , acceptability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management . Qualitative systematic review of SRs of r and omized controlled trials with cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management . The Cochrane data bases of SRs , Data base of Abstract s of Review s of Effects and PubMed were search ed for SR published in the period January 2009 to January 2017 . Assessment of the method ological quality of SR was performed by the AMSTAR checklist . Out of 748 papers identified , 10 SRs met the inclusion criteria . The method ological quality was high in four and moderate in six SRs . There were inconsistent findings of four SRs on the efficacy of cannabis-based medicines in neuropathic pain and of one SR for painful spasms in multiple sclerosis . There were consistent results that there was insufficient evidence of any cannabis-based medicine for pain management in patients with rheumatic diseases ( three SRs ) and in cancer pain ( two SRs ) . Cannabis-based medicines undoubtedly enrich the possibilities of drug treatment of chronic pain conditions . It remains the responsibility of the health care community to continue to pursue rigorous study of cannabis-based medicines to provide evidence that meets the st and ard of 21st century clinical care . SIGNIFICANCE We provide an overview of systematic review s on the efficacy , tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for chronic pain management . There are inconsistent findings of the efficacy of cannabinoids in neuropathic pain and painful spasms in multiple sclerosis . There are inconsistent results on tolerability and safety of cannabis-based medicines for any chronic pain Objective . The aim of this overview was to summarize the outcome measures of Chinese herbal medicine ( CHM ) for the treatment of hypertension based on available systematic review s ( SRs ) , so as to evaluate the potential benefits and advantages of CHM on hypertension . Methods . Literature search es were conducted in the Cochrane Data base of Systematic Review s , MEDLINE , and 4 data bases in Chinese . SRs of CHM for hypertension were included . Two independent review ers ( J. Wang and X. J. Xiong ) extracted the data . Results . 10 SRs were included . 2 SRs had primary endpoints , while others focused on secondary endpoints to evaluate CHM for hypertension such as blood pressure ( BP ) and Traditional Chinese Medicine ( TCM ) syndrome . 6 SRs have reported the adverse effects , whereas the other 4 SRs have not mentioned it at all . Many CHM appeared to have significant effect on improving BP , TCM syndrome , and so on . However , most SRs failed to make a definite conclusion for the effectiveness of CHM for hypertension due to poor evidence . Conclusion . Primary endpoints have not been widely used currently . The benefits of CHM for hypertension need to be confirmed in the future with r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) of more persuasive primary endpoints and high- quality SRs Bathing in water ( balneotherapy or spa therapy ) has been frequently and widely used in classical medicine as a cure for diseases . This paper review s the present literature on the use of balneotherapy in dermatologic , chronic musculoskeletal ( inflammatory and non-inflammatory ) , metabolic and psychological conditions . We performed a systematic review on related papers appearing in the Medline and Cochrane Library data base from 1966 to 2003 that included r and omized controlled and non-r and omized clinical trials using balneotherapy . We also determined to reflect where possible the chemical compositions of spas . The major dermatologic and musculoskeletal diseases that are frequently treated by balneotherapy with a remarkable rate of success are atopic dermatitis , psoriasis , rheumatoid arthritis ( RA ) , ankylosing spondylitis , osteoarthritis and low back pain . Moreover , the effects of spa therapy on several metabolic conditions are discussed . The mechanisms by which broad spectrums of diseases respond to spa therapy probably incorporate chemical , thermal and mechanical effects . The importance of balneotherapy either alone or as complement to other therapies should be considered after , or accompanying , orthodox medical treatments Background The purpose of this report is to provide a succinct but comprehensive summary of the scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of manual treatment for the management of a variety of musculoskeletal and non-musculoskeletal conditions . Methods The conclusions are based on the results of systematic review s of r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) , widely accepted and primarily UK and United States evidence -based clinical guidelines , plus the results of all RCTs not yet included in the first three categories . The strength/ quality of the evidence regarding effectiveness was based on an adapted version of the grading system developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force and a study risk of bias assessment tool for the recent RCTs . Results By September 2009 , 26 categories of conditions were located containing RCT evidence for the use of manual therapy :  13 musculoskeletal conditions , four types of chronic headache and nine non-musculoskeletal conditions . We identified 49 recent relevant systematic review s and 16 evidence -based clinical guidelines plus an additional 46 RCTs not yet included in systematic review s and guidelines .Additionally , brief references are made to other effective non-pharmacological , non-invasive physical treatments . Conclusions Spinal manipulation/mobilization is effective in adults for : acute , subacute , and chronic low back pain ; migraine and cervicogenic headache ; cervicogenic dizziness ;  manipulation/mobilization is effective for several extremity joint conditions ; and thoracic manipulation/mobilization is effective for acute/subacute neck pain . The evidence is inconclusive for cervical manipulation/mobilization alone for neck pain of any duration , and for manipulation/mobilization for mid back pain , sciatica , tension-type headache , coccydynia , temporom and ibular joint disorders , fibromyalgia , premenstrual syndrome , and pneumonia in older adults . Spinal manipulation is not effective for asthma and dysmenorrhea when compared to sham manipulation , or for Stage 1 hypertension when added to an antihypertensive diet . In children , the evidence is inconclusive regarding the effectiveness for otitis media and enuresis , and it is not effective for infantile colic and asthma when compared to sham manipulation . Massage is effective in adults for  chronic low back pain and chronic neck pain . The evidence is inconclusive for knee osteoarthritis , fibromyalgia , myofascial pain syndrome , migraine headache , and premenstrual syndrome . In children , the evidence is inconclusive for asthma and infantile colic BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE Acupuncture is widely used in the treatment of hypertension , yet its efficacy and safety for hypertension remain controversial . This overview aim ed to summarize the evidence on acupuncture for hypertension . METHODS Eight data bases were search ed . The Assessment of Multiple Systematic Review s ( AMSTAR ) tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment , Development and Evaluation ( GRADE ) approach were performed . RESULTS Fifteen systematic review s ( SRs ) were identified . Method ological quality and quality of evidence were unsatisfactory . Acupuncture combined with Western medicine ( WM ) was superior to WM in systolic blood pressure ( SBP ) and diastolic blood pressure ( DBP ) , efficacy rate , and traditional Chinese medicine ( TCM ) syndrome .  Acupuncture was more effective in treating SBP and DBP than sham acupuncture plus WM . Evidence regarding the benefit of acupuncture alone for SBP and DBP , efficacy rate and TCM syndrome was inconsistent . No serious adverse effects were identified . CONCLUSION High- quality SRs and r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) are required Review articles are an important element of most medical journals and a popular source of information for clinicians ( 1 ) . Given the increasing volume of medical literature and the limited time for reading that busy clinicians have , reliance on review articles is likely to increase . However , concerns have been raised that narrative , non systematic review articles may produce biased conclusions ( 2 , 3 ) . Mulrow ( 4 ) examined 50 review articles published in four major medical journals ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Annals of Internal Medicine , JAMA , and Archives of Internal Medicine ) in 1985 - 1986 and found that none fulfilled 8 explicit criteria for scientifically sound summaries of the evidence . As a result , she and others ( 5 , 6 ) proposed criteria for conducting and evaluating review articles that would improve their quality ; these criteria are the first 10 listed in the Appendix Table . In a study of 36 review articles done by nine content experts and method ologists , these criteria were shown to yield reliable and valid estimates of the scientific quality of review s ( 7 , 8) . We sought to describe the methods used in recently published review articles and determine whether the attention paid to the method ologic shortcomings of review articles has led to improvements in their scientific quality . Methods By using the Science Citation Index ( 9 ) , we stratified the 12 general medicine journals that are considered core journals for ACP Journal Club ( 10 ) into those with high impact factors ( scores 5 ) and those with lower impact factors . We r and omly selected 3 ( The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , Annals of Internal Medicine , and JAMA ) of the 4 high-impact core journals and 3 ( British Medical Journal , American Journal of Medicine , and Journal of Internal Medicine ) of the 8 core journals with lower impact factors . The sampling frame included 3 of the 4 journals examined in Mulrow 's original study ( 4 ) . All 6 journals were h and - search ed by two of the investigators independently , and review articles published between January and December 1996 were retrieved . Review articles were defined as full-text articles published under the banner review that dealt with disease states ; had the words review , overview , or meta- analysis in the title or abstract ; or indicated in the text that the intention was to review or summarize the literature about a clinical topic . Editorials , correspondence , and conference summaries were excluded . Disagreements on article eligibility ( which occurred in five cases ) were resolved by consensus . After training with a test set of articles , five of the authors used explicit criteria ( Appendix Table ) to rate the identified review articles . So that the raters ' assessment s would be blinded , the articles ' authors , author affiliations , and sources of articles were masked . The first 10 criteria in the Appendix Table ( hereafter referred to as method ologic criteria ) have been previously vali date d ( 7 ) and assess method ologic rigor , whereas the last five criteria were developed for this study to evaluate the scientific basis of treatment recommendations . Because inter-rater agreement was excellent on the test set ( overall agreement , 94 % ) , each rater was assigned a r and om sample of 20 % of the articles . One rater independently evaluated a r and om sample of five articles from each rater to assess inter-rater reliability for the criteria . The mean value was 0.79 , indicating substantial agreement ; overall agreement was 95 % and ranged from 84 % for criteria 1 and 6 to 100 % for criteria 2 , 3 , and 5 . After we determined the number of criteria fulfilled by each article , the number of articles meeting each criterion was ascertained . The proportion of review s from high-impact journals and from lower-impact journals that met each criterion were compared . Only the subset of review s containing treatment recommendations were used for the comparisons for criteria 7 to 15 . The chi-square test was used and 95 % CIs for the observed differences were calculated for all comparisons . In addition , articles identified as meta-analyses , systematic review s , or overviews in their title , abstract , or text were compared with the remaining review articles for each criterion ( again by using the chi-square test and by limiting analysis to those that included treatment recommendations for criteria 7 to 15 ) . Logistic regression analysis was used to adjust for journal of publication . The funding organizations were not involved in the design , conduct , analysis , or reporting of this study . Results A total of 158 review articles were identified : 60 from The New Engl and Journal of Medicine , 33 from Annals of Internal Medicine , 24 from British Medical Journal , 18 from American Journal of Medicine , 13 from JAMA , and 10 from Journal of Internal Medicine . ( A full list of the included articles is available from Dr. McAlister on request . ) Most review s were written by more than one author ( median number of authors , 2 [ range , 1 to 10 authors ] ) , and 111 review s ( 70 % ) made treatment recommendations . Although most articles had sections review ing the relevant pathophysiology and pharmacodynamics , 19 articles ( 12 % ) were largely basic science review s. Only 2 review s met all 10 method ologic criteria ; the median number of criteria fulfilled was one ( Figure ) . Nineteen ( 12 % ) of the review articles were described as meta- analysis , systematic review , or overview in the title or abstract ; 12 of these 19 articles were published in high-impact journals . A higher proportion of these articles met the method ologic criteria ( Appendix Table ) ; the comparisons for all but criterion 6 were statistically significant , even after adjustment for journal of publication ( P<0.005 for all comparisons ) . Although there was significant heterogeneity among journals ( P<0.005 for criteria 1 to 5 , 7 , and 8) , review articles published in high-impact journals did not meet method ologic criteria more frequently than those published in other journals ( Table ) . Exclusion of the review s from one journal with method ologic scores that were significantly lower than the rest ( P<0.001 for all comparisons ) resolved much of the interjournal heterogeneity and revealed that review s published in the remaining high-impact journals more often met some ( but not all ) of the method ologic criteria ( Table ) . Figure . Percentage of 158 review articles published in 1996 that fulfilled specific method ologic criteria . Table . Comparison of Methods Used in 1996 Review Articles , by Journal Impact Factor The 44 articles that described how evidence was located used the following sources ( which were not mutually exclusive ) : MEDLINE ( 42 articles ) , h and search of reference lists from published studies or review articles ( 30 articles ) , other electronic data bases ( 14 articles ) , contact with experts in the field ( 10 articles ) , h and search of relevant journals ( 7 articles ) , and contact with the pharmaceutical industry ( 5 articles ) . Of the 22 review s that included a description of the electronic search strategy , the search was restricted to English- language publications in 11 . Of the 111 review s in which treatment recommendations were made , a median of 3 therapies ( range , 1 to 23 therapies ) were discussed . The 16 meta-analyses that included treatment recommendations were more focused , examining a median of 1 therapy ( range , 1 to 6 therapies ) . The scientific basis of these recommendations is outlined in the last five criteria of the Appendix Table . Discussion In summary , only a minority of the review articles published in six widely read general medical journals specified rigorous , systematic methods of identifying , evaluating , and synthesizing the evidence , thereby raising concerns about the validity of their conclusions and recommendations ( 11 ) . Furthermore , although most review articles made recommendations for therapeutic options , their clinical relevance may be limited : Only one third discussed benefits and harms of the treatment options , only 6 % mentioned the relative or absolute costs of the various options , less than half provided an estimate of the anticipated treatment effect , and very few presented the results in clinical ly relevant formats that would be easily understood by clinicians . Although there is still substantial room for improvement , these results do represent progress from the situation in 1985 - 1986 ( Appendix Table ) . A higher proportion of recently published review s specify how the evidence was identified and synthesized . This same pattern was observed in a recent study of oncology review articles published in a single journal between 1983 and 1995 ( 12 ) . Similarly , our findings for meta-analyses published in these journals in 1996 are consistent with contemporaneous investigations in other fields and represent substantial improvement over the state of affairs in the mid-1980s ( 13 , 14 ) . Our study had several potential limitations . First , the authors of articles in which systematic methods were not specified may have used such methods but not reported them ( or the journal may have removed the details of the methods in prepublication ) . However , preliminary evidence suggests that there is little difference between the conduct of studies and their published methods ( 7 , 15 ) . In other words , if what was done is not reported , there is a good chance that it was not done rigorously ( 7 ) . Second , our finding that meta-analyses are more scientifically rigorous than other review s may be seen as tautological because the criteria used in this study may be used by meta-analysts in performing their studies . However , meta-analysts disagree over some issues of methodology , and published meta-analyses often vary in the quality of their reports ( 13 ) . Third , the practical importance of the method ologic flaws identified in these review s is difficult to ascertain . We lack empirical evidence that review s with explicit , systematic methods yield results closer to the truth , but it is known that non systematic review s are more prone to r and om and Background Musculoskeletal disorders ( MSDs ) are the leading cause of work disability and sickness absence worldwide . The prevalence of MSDs increases with age , consequently challenging sustainable employability among the growing ageing workforce . Knowledge of feasible and efficient workplace-based interventions to rehabilitate MSD or prevent its consequences is therefore warranted . This systematic review will evaluate the effectiveness of workplace-based interventions on MSDs and its consequences among adult workers with physical and sedentary work tasks , respectively . Methods We will search the following bibliographic data bases : PubMed ( including the data base ‘ MEDLINE ’ ) and Web of Science Core Collection ( including the data bases ‘ Science Citation Index Exp and ed ’ , ‘ Social Sciences Citation Index ’ and ‘ Arts & Humanities Citation Index ’ ) . Manual search es will also be performed . We will include r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) and non- RCTs reported in English in which ( 1 ) participants are adult workers with MSD , ( 2 ) interventions are aim ing at rehabilitating pain symptoms of MSD or preventing the consequences of MSD and ( 3 ) interventions are initiated and /or carried out at the workplace . The review will adhere to the ‘ Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic review s and Meta-Analyses ’ ( PRISMA ) guidelines for reporting systematic review s and the Institute for Work and Health ( IWH ) guidelines for workplace-based interventions . For the primary evaluation of the review , the quality assessment and evidence synthesis will conform to the IWH guidelines . Secondary evaluation will include a meta- analysis ( unless the included studies do not allow this due to heterogeneity ) and employ the risk of bias domains recommended by Cochrane along with the Grading of Recommendations , Assessment , Development and Evaluations ( GRADE ) approach on the studies with pain intensity as an outcome . Discussion This systematic review will provide knowledge on effective workplace-based interventions among physical and sedentary workers with MSD . RCTs are considered the most powerful experimental design in clinical trials , but solely including these may be too restrictive to underst and effective workplace-based interventions where r and omised and carefully controlled trials ( RCTs ) are not always possible . In order to maximize practical relevance , the selection process will , therefore , include both RCTs and non- RCTs and the quality assessment and evidence synthesis will conform to IWH guidelines focusing on developing practical guidelines for stakeholders . The result of this work will form the basis for industry-specific evidence -based recommendations on effective workplace-based interventions for rehabilitation of MSDs and its consequences that will later be operationalised into concrete and user-friendly practical tools for workplaces . Systematic review registration International Prospect i ve Register of Systematic Review s ( PROSPERO ) number CRD42018116752 Cad . Saúde Pública , Rio de Janeiro , 23(6):1252 - 1253 , jun , 2007 For the first time in the history of Cadernos de Saúde Pública/Reports in Public Health , the journal has recently design ated a specific Associate Editor to receive and h and le review and essay articles . The clash between “ traditional ” and systematic review s is now at the center of an instigating debate . Two quite recent articles conducting review s of review s ( Annu Rev Public Health 2006 ; 27:81 - 102 and BMC Med Res Method ol 2006 ; 6:35 ) question the supposedly unequivocal advantages of systematic over traditional review s , basically in the following terms : that the former do not necessarily confirm their self-ascribed rigor ( almost as if it were an intrinsic attribute of the systematic review process itself ) ; that on many occasions systematic review s have lost their critical perspective ; and finally that they fail to deal adequately with the gap between evidence and its translation into public policies . The above critiques sound pertinent , but in my view they stem from the uncomfortable coexistence of review s , systematic review s , and essays in public health , as if the undeniable rise of systematic review s in recent years ( especially in the field of epidemiology ) must necessarily have taken place at the expense of traditional review s and essays . In my point of view , such a clash is artificial . The mistakes have arisen from simplistic historical readings and conceptual views , as in a purported linear order between the application of statistical methods to public health and the emergence of clinical epidemiology and evidence -based medicine , and the subsequent translation into a view that public policies should likewise be based strictly on evidence . As Stephen Senn contends in Dicing with Death : Chance , Risk and Health , the historical facts do not precisely follow this sequence . British statistician Archie Cochrane ( immortalized in the Cochrane Library , including the Data base of Systematic Review s by the same name ) was initially commissioned to apply statistical analysis methods to evaluate the British National Health System , with a view towards reducing waste in the NHS and increasing its effectiveness and caseresolving capacity . The Cochrane Data base was thus born from the initial systematization of r and omized trials , where observational studies display what is considered second-order evidence , serving as the empirical basis for evidence -based medicine . However , the methods and techniques developed by Cochrane and his original group are not tributaries of the emergence of clinical epidemiology , which took place decades later , but converse very closely with the daily operation of the NHS . To some quantitative research ers , essays in public health sound like the “ ugly duckling ” of review s. Therein likes another conceptual error , in my view . Epidemiology has much to gain from encouragement for systematic review s , but much to lose if it foregoes critical review s and essays . An example is the seminal essay by Stephen J. Gould on the interface between public health , statistics , and psychology ( The Mismeasure of Man ) . Few realize that in parallel with this essay , Gould published an article reanalyzing empirical data through factor analysis , in Science ( 1978 ; 200:503 - 9 ) . Thus , there is nothing strange or bad about combining essays and the application of quantitative methods . In short , different watersheds for the review of findings and concepts all have their place . Bring on new review s , systematic review s , and essays , as long as they are based on quality and readability ! All three are more than welcome ! Review s , systematic review s , and essays in public health Low  back pain  has long been described as a challenge for both primary care physicians and specialists . Management of  low back pain  has also been criticized as frequently arbitrary , inappropriate , or ineffective . Contributing factors have been an inadequate evidence base and a need for more rigorous appraisal s of the available literature . Evidence -based medicine , an approach to clinical problem solving , is predicated on the premise that high- quality health care will result from practice s consistent with the best evidence . In contrast to the traditional medical paradigm that placed a heavy reliance on expert opinion , authority , and un systematic clinical observations , evidence -based medicine emphasizes the need for rigorous critical appraisal s of the scientific literature to inform medical decision making . Evidence -based medicine places strong weight on the requirement for valid studies , particularly r and omized controlled trials , to appropriately evaluate the effectiveness of health care interventions . Because of the rapidly increasing volume of medical literature , however , most clinicians are unable to keep up-to- date with all the new data . Two types of preprocessed evidence that can aid busy clinicians in medical decision making are systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines . Like primary studies , systematic review s and clinical practice guidelines must adhere to high method ologic st and ards to reduce error and bias . As in other areas of medicine , the approach to the management of low back pain has been positively affected by the availability of more clinical trials and better use of critical appraisal techniques to evaluate and apply research findings . In addition to more rigorous primary studies , an increasing number of high- quality systematic review s and evidence -based clinical practice guidelines for low back pain are also available . Although some research gaps and method ologic shortcomings persist , the richer evidence base has greatly improved our underst and ing of what does and does not work for low back pain . Despite these advances , the best available evidence often does not inform everyday clinical decisions for low back pain . Nonetheless , there is widespread agreement that adherence to evidence -based practice will help improve low back pain patient outcomes and reduce arbitrary variations in care . This article review s basic principles of evidence -based medicine , discusses evidence -based medicine in the context of low back pain management , and summarizes some useful evidence -based medicine re sources Twenty years ago , you could read all the literature in your field , said reference librarian Kathy Robbins , PhD , MLIS , scanning shelf after shelf of medical journals at the University of Minnesota Bio-Medical Library in Minneapolis . Now , 6000 journal articles are published each day . Merely keeping up with this torrent of information in one 's own specialty is difficult enough . Synthesizing and applying the knowledge to patient care verges on the impossible without some sort of guidance . Fortunately , this guidance is available . Bringing the fruits of new research to the bedside takes at least four levels of review , said Brian Haynes , MD , PhD , professor and chair of the department of clinical epidemiology at McMaster University in Hamilton , Ontario , Canada . Publications such as ACP Journal Club ( of which Haynes is the editor ) collect relevant trials ; the Cochrane Collaboration synthesizes studies of a given research question ; Evidence -Based Medicine Review s integrates the material ; and Clinical Evidence from the British Medical Journal organizes the information according to clinical topic areas , bringing the material closer to practitioners . The goal of the Cochrane Collaboration is to improve the quality of decisions in health care by preparing , maintaining , and promoting the accessibility of systematic review s of the effects of health care interventions . The Cochrane Collaboration has consistently used r and omized , controlled trials ( RCTs ) as the principal focus of its review s. For medical research , The Cochrane Collaboration is a good place to start , said Robbins . If the answer is there , you save time , because the Collaboration has already done the work of search ing journals . The Cochrane Collaboration and Evidence -Based Medicine The Cochrane Collaboration , which is almost a decade old , has a special flavor because its members receive no financial compensation for their contributions . Another noteworthy aspect of the Collaboration is its origin , which stems from the inspiration of one person . Archibald L. Cochrane was a charismatic British epidemiologist whose call for a hard look at how to tell which interventions did more harm than good inspired the formation of a worldwide consortium that prepares systematic review s of r and omized clinical trials . Both evidence -based medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration have roots in the same soil , said Haynes . The origins were n't spontaneous on either side of the Atlantic , said Haynes . Public investment in health care research after World War II had finally produced results that had gone from the laboratory to r and omized , controlled trials . At that point , there was still a gap between evidence and practice . Closing that gap meant knowing which interventions worked and how well . At McMaster , this led to work by Haynes and David Sackett , joined by Alvan Feinstein at Yale , and others , in what was then called critical appraisal of medical literature . ( According to Haynes , the term evidence -based medicine was not introduced until 1991 in an article by Gordon Guyatt in ACP Journal Club . ) In Britain , similar impulses led to the Cochrane Collaboration . Archie Cochrane : A History Kay Dickersin , PhD , codirector of the Collaboration 's New Engl and Center , has written that Archie Cochrane was one of the first to advance the notion that health services must be evaluated on the basis of scientific evidence rather than on clinical impression , anecdotal experience , expert opinion , or tradition .  Cochrane was born in Scotl and in 1909 , graduated from the University of Cambridge , and studied medicine at University Hospital in London . He joined the Royal Army Medical Corps in 1939 and was taken prisoner in 1941 when the German army overran British forces defending the Greek isl and of Crete .  Cochrane spent the rest of the war in prisoner-of-war camps in Greece and Germany , often as the only medical officer serving thous and s of fellow prisoners . Some of the prisoners in the camp in Greece developed edema in their legs , which Cochrane hypothesized was a form of beriberi caused by vitamin B deficiency . He divided his patients into two groups and added yeast to the diet of one group . The intervention worked , and he then persuaded German army officials at the camp to provide yeast to all inmates . It was , Cochrane wrote , his first , worst , and most successful trial ( Cochrane AL . Br Med J [ Clin Res Ed ] . 1984;289:1726 - 7 ) . Later in Germany , when caring for prisoners with tuberculosis , he lamented the lack of hard evidence on whether and when to perform pneumothorax or thoracoplasty . These experiences and observations inspired a postwar career in epidemiology . After the war , Cochrane returned to London and studied statistics under Bradford Hill ( who would publish the first major r and omized clinical trial , on streptomycin to treat pulmonary tuberculosis , in 1948 ) . Cochrane settled in Cardiff , Wales , where over the next 20 years , he studied the epidemiology of tuberculosis and pneumoconiosis . In 1972 , Cochrane published Effectiveness and Efficiency : R and om Reflections on Health Services , in which he argued that r and omized clinical trials could separate valuable interventions from harmful or useless ones . Seven years later , he wrote : It is surely a great criticism of our profession that we have not organized a critical summary , by specialty or subspecialty , adapted periodically , of all relevant r and omized , controlled trials . Cochrane was especially critical of obstetrics and gynecology , which had failed to evaluate properly new innovations in the field ( such as the move to universal hospital delivery for childbirth and the introduction of Papanicolaou smears for cancer screening of the cervix ) before widespread introduction . Iain Chalmers , an obstetrician in Cardiff who knew Cochrane and his work , found Cochrane 's ideas compelling . If one is going to make rational use of limited re sources for health care , one needs to know which of the many things that people are doing within health care have been shown in reliable research studies to be more likely to do good than harm , said Chalmers recently . And the search for and analysis of the evidence needed to provide this information base should be systematic . The First RCT Registry Thus inspired , Chalmers set out in 1974 to create a comprehensive register of all r and omized clinical trials in perinatal medicine ( pregnancy through postpartum day 28 ) . At the time , a MEDLINE search might have retrieved barely half of all trials published after 1965 . Chalmers directed a team of volunteers in h and search ing 50 journals , going as far back as 1940 . They accumulated 3500 trial reports , and their compilation result ed in the publication in 1985 of A Classified Bibliography of Controlled Trials in Perinatal Medicine , 19401984 . Rapid progress in the field , however , meant that the volume was out of date almost immediately after it was printed , said Dickersin . A regularly up date d , electronic version first appeared in 1988a harbinger of later storage and distribution systems ( Dickersin K , Manheimer E. Clin Obstet Gynecol . 1998;41:315 - 31 ) . Further analytic work by Chalmers and others based on this bibliographic material yielded several volumes on perinatal medicine , including a 350-page paperback , Guide to Effective Care in Pregnancy and Childbirth , that presented the conclusions of the full versions in ways immediately useful to women using the maternity services . The systematic review s that were initially published on paper in three books were then kept up to date in a semi-annual electronic publication called The Oxford Data base of Perinatal Trials . Birth of the Cochrane Collaboration In 1993 , Chalmers and an international group of about 70 others jointly announced the formation of the Cochrane Collaboration to prepare , maintain , and disseminate systematic review s of the effects of health care interventions . Dickersin was the principal U.S. representative at the inaugural meeting . The Collaboration 's systematic review s entail exhaustive literature search es and the selection and analysis of studies based on explicit , prespecified criteria , sometimes , but not always , using meta-analyses , which are formal , mathematical combinations of numerical results . With the traditional review article , there are no guidelines about how to do it and no transparency for the reader . You ca n't tell if they 've really plowed through the literature or just picked over their file cabinets , said Dickersin , now associate professor of community health at Brown University School of Medicine in Providence , Rhode Isl and . Meta-analyses , to be good , must be of high quality and appropriate . Sometimes they may lump data together from both r and omized and observational trials or exhibit other biases . When poor meta-analyses are associated with systematic review s , people may assume guilt by association . Clinical practice guidelines may be an outgrowth of systematic review s , but they should be done by different peopleclinicians and professional organizations , she said . How Cochrane Works The Collaboration is made up of review groups , centers , fields , methods groups , and the consumer network . The review groups search for , collect , and analyze RCTs relating to specific health conditions . The 15 centers that constitute the Collaboration are geographically dispersed across 13 countries . In addition to coordinating the review activities within their region , each center also performs specialized functions . The San Francisco Center , for instance , advises on the electronic feedback and peer- review system . An elected 12-member steering group oversees the entire organization , supported by a small secretariat based in Oxford . The real work of the Collaboration takes place in the review groups , building on the model established by Chalmers ' work on perinatal medicine . Initiative for review s generally comes from members who suggest topics to the groups , explained Lisa A. Bero , PhD , associate professor of health policy studies Three years ago , we founded this journal focusing on publishing systematic review s , systematic review protocol s , and associated method ological development papers . Systematic review s , which developed in the social sciences in the 1970s , began to gain rapid momentum during the 1990s in response to concerns by policymakers and clinicians about the scientific validity of the prevailing paradigm of traditional narrative review s written by authoritative experts . What distinguished systematic review s was the use of formal explicit methods , in other words pre-specification , of what exactly was the question to be answered , how evidence was search ed for and assessed , and how it was synthesized in order to reach the conclusion . Importantly , these formal methods were described as part of the review itself in a Methods section . In turn , these methods themselves became the subject of hypothesis-testing studies , as investigators sought how best to search for evidence , assess studies for quality or risk of bias , determine under what conditions meta- analysis was justified , and how to best determine and characterize our confidence in the conclusions . The results of these hypothesis-testing studies led over time to improvements in the methods we use for systematic review s. Thus , systematic review s and this journal are part of an ever-evolving process whose foundations are rooted in the scientific method . Today , new forms of review s are appearing . These have emerged in response to policymakers and other stakeholders ’ needs for information , sometimes emergently or urgently , for which the existing systematic review model does not quite fit . Hence , the rapid review , when time is of the essence ; the scoping review , when what is needed is not detailed answers to specific questions but rather an overview of a broad field ; the evidence map , a cousin of scoping review s that commonly has a specific visual presentation of the evidence across a broad field ; and the realist review , where the question of interest includes how and why complex social interventions work in certain situations , rather than assume they either do or do not work at all . As Editors , we regularly get contacted by prospect i ve authors asking whether realist review s , or scoping review s , etc . , are “ within the scope ” for Systematic Review s , and therefore we judge it an opportune time to state our position on this matter . It is our view that all of these new forms of review s are related to systematic review s , similar to the way that different biological Species within the same Family are related to each other . We consider “ systematic review s ” to be the Family and the different forms of review s to be the different species . Just as in the biological classification , where the related organisms must share certain characteristics , so too must the different types of review s share a common characteristic . In this case , what is shared is their foundation in the scientific method , with their methods articulated in advance in sufficient detail that the review can be reproduced by others . A further defining feature is that there are scholars devoted to improving the methods over time via hypothesis-testing studies . Systematic Review s has responded to these emerging techniques and already publishes papers reporting methods and findings from the systematic review family and has for example published an extremely popular series on rapid review s. We would like to consoli date this position and invite su bmi ssion of these new species of review s , as long as they meet the qualifications just listed . We expect this process of evolution to continue and to refine the methods such that in 10 years ’ time , there will appear new , as yet unimagined species of review s— and perhaps some current species of review will become extinct . Thus , it is with the scientific method , which we believe is the foundation that unites the Family of systematic review Acupuncture has been used therapeutically in China for thous and s of years and is growing in prominence in Europe and the United States . In a recent review of complementary and alternative medicine use in the US population , an estimated 2.1 million people or 1.1 % of the population sought acupuncture care during the past 12 months . Four percent of the US population used acupuncture at any time in their lives . We review ed 31 different published journal articles , including 23 r and omized controlled clinical trials and 8 meta- analysis / systematic review s. We found evidence of some efficacy and low risk associated with acupuncture in pediatrics . From all the conditions we review ed , the most extensive research has looked into acupuncture 's role in managing postoperative and chemotherapy-induced nausea/vomiting . Postoperatively , there is far more evidence of acupuncture 's efficacy for pediatrics than for children treated with chemotherapy . Acupuncture seems to be most effective in preventing postoperative induced nausea in children . For adults , research shows that acupuncture can inhibit chemotherapy-related acute vomiting , but conclusions about its effects in pediatrics can not be made on the basis of the available published clinical trials data to date . Besides nausea and vomiting , research conducted in pain has yielded the most convincing results on acupuncture efficacy . Musculoskeletal and cancer-related pain commonly affects children and adults , but unfortunately , mostly adult studies have been conducted thus far . Because the manifestations of pain can be different in children than in adults , data can not be extrapolated from adult research . Systematic review s have shown that existing data often lack adequate control groups and sample sizes . Vas et al , Alimi et al , and Mehling et al demonstrated some relief for adults treated with acupuncture but we could not find any well-conducted r and omized controlled studies that looked at pediatrics and acupuncture exclusively . Pain is often unresolved from drug therapy , thus there is a need for more studies in this setting . For seasonal allergic rhinitis , we review ed studies conducted by Ng et al and Xue et al in children and adults , respectively . Both population s showed some relief of symptoms through acupuncture , but questions remain about treatment logistics . Additionally , there are limited indications that acupuncture may help cure children afflicted with nocturnal enuresis . Systematic review s show that current published trials have suffered from low trial quality , including small sample sizes . Other areas of pediatric afflictions we review ed that suffer from lack of research include asthma , other neurologic conditions , gastrointestinal disorders , and addiction . Acupuncture has become a dominant complementary and alternative modality in clinical practice today , but its associated risk has been question ed . The National Institutes of Health Consensus Statement states “ one of the advantages of acupuncture is that the incidence of adverse effects is substantially lower than that of many drugs or other accepted procedures for the same conditions . ” A review of serious adverse events by White et al found the risk of a major complication occurring to have an incidence between 1:10,000 and 1:100,000 , which is considered “ very low . ” Another study found that the risk of a serious adverse event occurring from acupuncture therapy is the same as taking penicillin . The safety of acupuncture is a serious concern , particularly in pediatrics . Because acupuncture 's mechanism is not known , the use of needles in children becomes question able . For example , acupoints on the vertex of infants should not be needled when the fontanel is not closed . It is also advisable to apply few needles or delay treatment to the children who have overeaten , are overfatigued , or are very weak . Through our review of pediatric adverse events , we found a 1.55 risk of adverse events occurring in 100 treatments of acupuncture that coincides with the low risk detailed in the studies mentioned previously . The actual risk to an individual patient is hard to determine because certain patients , such as an immunosuppressed patient , can be predisposed to an increased risk , acupuncturist 's qualifications differ , and practice s vary in certain parts of the world . Nevertheless , it seems acupuncture is a safe complementary/alternative medicine modality for pediatric patients on the basis of the data we review ed Objectives . Overview the quality , direction , and characteristics of yoga interventions for treatment of acute and chronic health conditions in adult population s. Methods . We search ed for systematic review s in 10 online data bases , bibliographic references , and h and - search es in  yoga-related  journals . Included review s satisfy Oxman criteria and specify yoga as a primary intervention in one or more r and omized controlled trials for treatment in adults . The AMSTAR tool and GRADE approach evaluated the method ological quality of review s and quality of evidence . Results . We identified 2202 titles , of which 41 full-text articles were assessed for eligibility and 26 systematic review s satisfied inclusion criteria . Thirteen systematic review s include quantitative data and six papers include meta- analysis . The quality of evidence is generally low . Sixteen different types of health conditions are included . Eleven review s show tendency towards positive effects of yoga intervention , 15 review s report unclear results , and no , review s report adverse effects of yoga . Yoga appears most effective for reducing symptoms in anxiety , depression , and pain . Conclusion . Although the quality of systematic review s is high , the quality of supporting evidence is low . Significant heterogeneity and variability in reporting interventions by type of yoga , setting s , and population characteristics limit the generalizability of results Musculoskeletal injuries are a common presentation to the ED , with significant costs involved in the management of these injuries , variances in care within the ED and associated morbidity . A series of rapid review papers were completed to guide best practice for the assessment and management of common musculoskeletal injuries presenting to the ED . This paper presents the methodology used across the rapid review s. PubMed , CINAHL , EMBASE , TRIP and the grey literature , including relevant organisational websites , were search ed in 2015 . The search was repeated consistently for each topic area ( injuries of the foot and ankle , knee , h and and wrist , elbow , shoulder , lumbar spine and cervical spine ) . English- language primary studies , systematic review s and guidelines that were published in the last 10 years and addressed acute musculoskeletal injury management were considered for inclusion . Data extraction of each included article was conducted , followed by a quality appraisal . The extracted data from each article was synthesis ed to group similar evidence together . For each rapid review , the evidence has been organised in a way that a clinician can direct their attention to a specific component of the clinical cycle of care in the ED , such as the assessment , diagnostic tests , management and follow-up considerations from ED . The series of rapid review s are design ed to foster evidence -based practice within the ED , targeting the injuries most commonly presenting . The review s provide clinicians in EDs with rapid access to the best current evidence , which has been synthesis ed and organised to assist decision-making The Bulletin ’s editorial team has decided to encourage systematic review s. This is an important decision and is to be welcomed . However it is possible that it will not be received positively by all . Some may feel that systematic review s are not suitable for answering wider public health questions , and that the new section will simply result in the publication of systematic review s addressing narrowly focused , clinical questions with a focus on r and omized controlled trials alone.1 There is no reason why this should be so , and there are far too many examples of systematic review s of non- clinical interventions ( including government policies ) , which include non-r and omized studies , to list.2 Systematic review s of qualitative research are also becoming more common.3 Nonetheless misconceptions about the scope and flexibility of systematic review s still surface occasionally and it never fails to surprise me when I stumble across one of these hoary old chestnuts . If it really were true that systematic review s were only for simple , individual-level interventions , systematic review ers working in public health would be very concerned . After all , public health problems require us to draw on complex sets of qualitative as well as quantitative evidence ; and some policy interventions have never been subjected to r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) but have been evaluated using other approaches ; everything from controlled and uncontrolled before- and -after studies , to time series analyses , to qualitative methods . In such cases , systematic review s that focused on RCTs alone would have little to say and we would end up producing many “ empty review s ” , which contain no studies at all . These would be undoubtedly quicker to do and quicker to read than the typical systematic review , but would be of limited use for making policy . However this is not the case . In public health we already have a wealth of review s that prioritize RCTs where they are available , but which draw upon a range of other evidence where they are appropriate to answering the review question .2 Take , as an example , transport policies , an important social determinant of health.4 Public health decision-makers have been interested in the effects on health of building new roads for decades , but there has never been a r and omized controlled trial , for obvious reasons . Yet it would make no sense to cl aim that there is no evidence to be review ed ; rather , there have been many controlled and uncontrolled studies that have examined the effects of new roads on respiratory symptoms , injuries , community severance , disturbance and a variety of other outcomes of public health importance . These studies have in fact been systematic ally review ed.5 Many other examples of review s of complex interventions that impact on public health could be given , which appear on the Cochrane Data base and elsewhere,6,7 and such review s are the main focus of the recently-established Cochrane Public Health Review Group . It is also worth noting that both the Cochrane and Campbell Collaboration include increasing numbers of review s that are relevant to low- and middle- income countries,8 though there is a particular need for more systematic review s that consider the effects on equity of the interventions that they include.9 Currently systematic review s have a “ utilitarian bias ” – they tend to be concerned more with the effects on population s and average effects than with distributional effects and impacts in disadvantaged subgroups . It is to be hoped that systematic review s su bmi tted to the Bulletin will routinely consider the effects of interventions on health inequities . The Cochrane Health Equity Field ( http://equity.cochrane.org/en/index.html ) was set up explicitly to further this agenda , to encourage systematic review authors to explicitly assess the effects of interventions not only on the whole population , but on the disadvantaged . So where does this leave non- systematic review s ? Should every review be a systematic review ? This is a difficult question to answer in a short editorial . My own view is that not all review s need to be systematic review s ; there is still a place for review papers that provide a broad overview , and that discuss a range of evidence and make a contribution to wider debates about what might work in particular setting s. However , while such discussion s help place evidence in context and suggest how it may be used , they should not be confused with the evidence -based conclusions of a transparent , scientific review , which systematic ally attempts to find all the relevant evidence , appraises its strengths and limitations in a transparent fashion , and draws that evidence together in such a way that the more robust studies are given greater weight . Finally , the challenges are many . Evidence on interventions to improve public health is in short supply , particularly evidence on social determinants . Systematic review ers therefore face a real challenge in making best use of the sometimes poor , often sparse and usually heterogeneous evidence available to them . It is easy to set narrow inclusion criteria for a review and then sift through the evidence before concluding that there is n’t enough – and what there is , is n’t very good anyway . Such “ evidential nihilism ” is probably not helpful to decision-makers , and public health systematic review ers need to continue to develop new methods and better frameworks within which different types of research evidence can be integrated to inform decision-making . Publishing systematic review s in the Bulletin should give an added impetus to this ongoing work . Background : Trigger point dry needling ( TDN ) is commonly used to treat musculoskeletal pain related to myofascial trigger points ( MTrPs ) . To date , no systematic review of high- quality r and omised controlled trials ( RCTs ) investigating TDN to multiple body regions exists . Purpose : The aim of this review is to determine the effectiveness of TDN based on high- quality RCTs for all body regions . Methods : To ensure thorough reporting , Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review s and Meta-Analyses ( PRISMA ) guidelines were followed as the method ological basis for this systematic review . PubMed , Physiotherapy Evidence Data base ( PEDro ) , Cinahl , Cochrane and reference lists were search ed for the years 2000–2014 and the terms ‘ TDN ’ , ‘ dry needling NOT trigger point ’ , ‘ functional dry needling ’ and ‘ intramuscular manual therapy ’ . Inclusion criteria : RCTs with PEDro scores 6–10 investigating TDN . Exclusion criteria : duplicates , non-human participants , non-English language , exclusive focus on acupuncture or medicinal injections . Three investigators search ed data bases , applied criteria , read and assigned PEDro scores to every RCT . Nineteen studies met the criteria . As compared to either baseline or control groups , significant differences were found for pain ( 14 studies ) , range of motion ( ROM ) ( five studies ) and at least one item on function and quality of life measures ( six studies ) . Limitations : This review was limited by inclusion criteria , timeframe , language and data bases search ed . Conclusion : The majority of high- quality studies included in this review show measured benefit from TDN for MTrPs in multiple body areas , suggesting broad applicability of TDN treatment for multiple muscle groups . Further high- quality research is warranted to st and ardise TDN methods to determine clinical applicability Background Guasha is a therapeutic method for pain management using tools to scrape or rub the surface of the body to relieve blood stagnation . This study aims to systematic ally review the controlled clinical trials on the effectiveness of using Guasha to treat musculoskeletal pain . Methods We search ed 11 data bases ( without language restrictions ) : MEDLINE , Allied and Complementary Medicine ( AMED ) , EMBASE , Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature ( CINAHL ) , Korean Studies Information ( KSI ) , DBPIA , Korea Institute of Science and Technology Information ( KISTI ) , KoreaMed , Research Information Service System ( RISS ) , China National Knowledge Infrastructure ( CNKI ) and the Cochrane Library . The search strategy was Guasha ( OR scraping ) AND pain . Risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane criteria ( i.e. sequence generation , blinding , incomplete outcome measures and allocation concealment ) . Results Five r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) and two controlled clinical trials ( CCTs ) were included in the present study . Two RCTs compared Guasha with acupuncture in terms of effectiveness , while the other trials compared Guasha with no treatment ( 1 trial ) , acupuncture ( 4 trials ) , herbal injection ( 1 trial ) and massage or electric current therapy ( 1 trial ) . While two RCTs suggested favorable effects of Guasha on pain reduction and response rate , the quality of these RCTs was poor . One CCT reported beneficial effects of Guasha on musculoskeletal pain but had low method ological quality . Conclusion Current evidence is insufficient to show that Guasha is effective in pain management . Further RCTs are warranted and method ological quality should be improved Many r and omised controlled trials have been conducted in China to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional Chinese medicine , but much of the information is inaccessible to Western doctors . We estimated the total number of r and omised controlled trials published in China and identified problems in applying such methodology to the evaluation of traditional Chinese medicine , which would serve as preparatory work for systematic review and dissemination of the r and omised evidence for such medicine . We r and omly selected 28 journals using stratified sampling from a total of 100 Chinese journals of traditional Chinese medicine ( 4 national , 10 university , 10 provincial or regional , and 4 specialist journals ) . After special training , eight fifth year medical students ( working in pairs ) h and search ed all the issues of the journals published before 1 January 1997 to identify r and omised controlled trials . Discrepancies were settled by one of the principal investigators ( S-YZ ) . Data on method ological quality of r and omised controlled trials were extracted from 414 full length articles Background The efficacy of natural products ( NPs ) is being evaluated using r and omized controlled trials ( RCTs ) with increasing frequency , yet a search of the literature did not identify a widely accepted critical appraisal instrument developed specifically for use with NPs . The purpose of this project was to develop and evaluate a critical appraisal instrument that is sufficiently rigorous to be used in evaluating RCTs of conventional medicines , and also has a section specific for use with single entity NPs , including herbs and natural source d chemicals . Methods Three phases of the project included : 1 ) using experts and a Delphi process to reach consensus on a list of items essential in describing the identity of an NP ; 2 ) compiling a list of non-NP items important for evaluating the quality of an RCT using systematic review methodology to identify published instruments and then compiling item categories that were part of a vali date d instrument and /or had empirical evidence to support their inclusion and 3 ) conducting a field test to compare the new instrument to a published instrument for usefulness in evaluating the quality of 3 RCTs of a NP and in applying results to practice . Results Two Delphi rounds result ed in a list of 15 items essential in describing NPs . Seventeen item categories fitting inclusion criteria were identified from published instruments for conventional medicines . The new assessment instrument was assembled based on content of the two lists and the addition of a Review er 's Conclusion section . The field test of the new instrument showed good criterion validity . Participants found it useful in translating evidence from RCTs to practice . Conclusion A new instrument for the critical appraisal of RCTs of NPs was developed and tested . The instrument is distinct from other available assessment instruments for RCTs of NPs in its systematic development and validation . The instrument is ready to be used by pharmacy students , health care practitioners and academics and will continue to be refined as required The goal of evidence -based medicine is ultimately to improve patient outcomes and quality of care .  Systematic review s of the available published evidence are required to identify interventions that lead to improvements in behavior , health , and well-being . Authoritative literature review s depend on the quality of published research and research reports . The Consoli date d St and ards for Reporting Trials ( CONSORT ) Statement ( www.consort-statement.org ) was developed to improve the design and reporting of interventions involving r and omized clinical trials ( RCTs ) in medical journals . We describe the 22 CONSORT guidelines and explain their application to behavioral medicine research and to evidence -based practice . Additional behavioral medicine-specific guidelines ( e.g. , treatment adherence ) are also presented . Use of these guidelines by clinicians , educators , policymakers , and research ers who design , report , and evaluate or review RCTs will strengthen the research itself and accelerate efforts to apply behavioral medicine research to improve the processes and outcomes of behavioral medicine practice Background Bruxism is a disorder of jaw-muscle activity characterised by repetitive clenching or grinding of the teeth which results in discomfort and damage to dentition . The two clinical manifestations of the condition ( sleep and awake bruxism ) are thought to have unrelated aetiologies but are palliated using similar techniques . The lack of a definitive treatment has prompted renewed interest in biofeedback , a behaviour change method that uses electronic detection to provide a stimulus whenever bruxism occurs . This systematic review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the state of research into biofeedback for bruxism ; to assess the efficacy and acceptability of  biofeedback therapy in management of awake bruxism and , separately , sleep bruxism in adults ; and to compare findings between the two variants . Methods A systematic review of published literature examining biofeedback as an intervention directed at controlling primary bruxism in adults . We will search electronic data bases and the grey literature using a predefined search strategy to identify r and omised and non-r and omised studies , technical reports and patents . Search es will not be restricted by language or date and will be exp and ed through contact with authors and experts , and by following up reference lists and citations . Two authors , working independently , will conduct screening of search results , study selection , data extraction and quality assessment and a third will resolve any disagreements . The primary outcomes of acceptability and effectiveness will be assessed using only r and omised studies , segregated by bruxism subtype . A meta- analysis of these data will be conducted only if pre-defined conditions for quality and heterogeneity are met , otherwise the data will be summarized in narrative form . Data from non-r and omised studies will be used to augment a narrative synthesis of the state of technical developments and any safety-related issues . PROSPERO registration number : CRD42013006880 . Discussion Biofeedback is not new , but its place in the clinical management of bruxism remains unclear . New research , and the availability of miniaturized consumer- grade devices , makes a systematic review timely to guide treatment decisions and inform future research
HRM  treatment is associated with clinical improvement in diseases of the skin , respiratory , circulatory , digestive and nervous system among others .
The scientific literature of the last decade has shown that a number of non-musculoskeletal disorders are treated with different kinds of  HRM .
Health resort medicine ( HRM ; in German : Kurortmedizin ) is a field of medicine with long-lasting tradition in several European countries .
A number of systematic review s have shown the effectiveness of HRM  in musculoskeletal conditions .
Review s focusing on the effectiveness of HRM in non-musculoskeletal disorders are rare .
This systematic review aims to provide an overview about all types of health resort treatments applied in non-musculoskeletal conditions , to summarize evidence for its effectiveness and to assess the quality of published studies .