Published in

Wiley, Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 1(5), p. 98-98, 2010

DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2000.tb02364.x

Elsevier, Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 5(53), p. 485-489

DOI: 10.1016/s0895-4356(99)00220-6

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Location bias in controlled clinical trials of complementary/alternative therapies.

Journal article published in 2000 by Mh H. Pittler, Abbot N Harkness EF Ernst E. Pittler M., Nc C. Abbot, Ef F. Harkness ORCID, E. Ernst
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.
This paper was not found in any repository, but could be made available legally by the author.

Full text: Unavailable

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Upload
Orange circle
Postprint: archiving restricted
Upload
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Policy details
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

To systematically investigate location bias of controlled clinical trials in complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). Methods: Literature searches were performed to identify systematic reviews and meta-analyses, which were used to retrieve controlled clinical trials. Trials were categorised by whether they appeared in CAM-journals or mainstream medical (MM)-journals, and by their direction of outcome, methodological quality, and sample size. Results: 351 trials were analysed. A predominance of positive trials was seen in non-impact factor CAM- and MM-journals, (58) / (78) (74%) and (76) / (102) (75%) respectively, and also in low impact factor CAM- and MM-journals. In high impact factor MM-journals there were equal numbers of positive and negative trials, a distribution significantly (P