Quality of Reporting of Randomized Controlled Trials of Herbal Medicine Interventions
- 1 September 2006
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Elsevier in The American Journal of Medicine
- Vol. 119 (9) , 800.e1-800.e11
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2006.02.006
Abstract
No abstract availableKeywords
This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit:
- Recommendations for reporting randomized controlled trials of herbal interventions: explanation and elaborationJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2006
- Lack of herbal supplement characterization in published randomized controlled trialsThe American Journal of Medicine, 2005
- For randomized controlled trials, the quality of reports of complementary and alternative medicine was as good as reports of conventional medicineJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Bad reporting does not mean bad methods for randomised trials: observational study of randomised controlled trials performed by the Radiation Therapy Oncology GroupBMJ, 2004
- How objective are systematic reviews? Differences between reviews on complementary medicineJournal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 2003
- Systematic reviews in health care: Assessing the quality of controlled clinical trialsBMJ, 2001
- Prevalence of Use of Herbal Products by Adults in the Minneapolis/St Paul, Minn, Metropolitan AreaMayo Clinic Proceedings, 2001
- Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses?Published by Elsevier ,1998
- Mistletoe treatment for cancer review of controlled trials in humansPhytomedicine, 1994
- Clinical trials of homoeopathy.BMJ, 1991