Complementary And Alternative Medicine Journals Research Articles

Ethical requirements of instructions for authors of complementary and alternative medicine journals: a cross-sectional study

BackgroundMedical research in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has increased recently, raising ethical concerns about the moral status of CAM. Medical academic journals are responsible for conducting ethical review (ER) of manuscripts to protect the interests of human subjects and to make ethical results available before deciding to publish. However, there has been no systematic analysis of the ER in CAM journals. This study is aim to evaluate the current status of ethical requirements and compliance in CAM journals.MethodsThis is a cross-sectional study. We reviewed instructions for authors (IFAs) of CAM journals included in the Journal Citation Reports (2021) (https://jcr.clarivate.com) for general information and requirements for ER. We also browsed the manuscripts regarding randomized controlled trials published by CAM journals in Q1 and Q2 section from January to June, 2023, to check the actual situation of ethical requirement. Descriptive statistics and Fisher’s exact test were used for statistical analysis.Results27 journals and 68 manuscripts were ultimately included. 92.6% (25/27) IFAs included keywords of ER, indicating the presence of ethical considerations. However, no specific ER was required for CAM (n = 0). We categorized journals by Geographic origin, JCR section, Year of electronic JCR, Types of studies, % of OA Gold to explore the factors that could influence CAM journals to have certain ethical review policies. The results showed there was no statistical significance in certain ethical review policy in any classification of journals (p > 0.05). All RCT manuscripts included in the study generally met the requirements of the published journals for ethical review.ConclusionsAll IFAs discussed ER, but the content was scattered, unfocused, and there were no specific ER requirements regarding CAM. Although the manuscripts basically met the requirements of the journal, it was not possible to get closer to the process of ER in the manuscript. To ensure full implementation of these policies in the future, CAM journals should require authors to provide more details, or to form a list of items necessary for CAM ethical review.

Use of statistical methods among acupuncture randomized controlled trials was far from satisfactory

ObjectivesTo examine whether appropriate statistical methods were used in acupuncture randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Study Design and SettingWe searched PubMed to identify acupuncture RCTs with continuous outcome as primary outcome published in the core clinical journals and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) journals between January 2010 and December 2019 (10 years). We compared statistical characteristics of included trials published in core clinical journals and CAM journals. ResultsWe included 262 RCTs, including 46 published in core clinical journals and 216 in CAM journals. Of included RCTs, only 132 (50.4%) clearly predefined the primary outcome, 72 (27.5%) specified the use of intention to treat or modified intention to treat population for primary analysis. In the 167 trials reported missing participant data (MPD), 118 (70.7%) used suboptimal methods (e.g., complete case analysis) for dealing with MPD; 11 (6.6%) conducted sensitivity analysis regarding MPD. Among the 161 trials with repeated measures design, only 21 (13.0%) used advanced statistical models (e.g., mixed-effects models) for handling repeated-measure data in the primary analysis. In the 72 trials involving multiple acupuncturists, only 4 (5.6%) adjusted acupuncturist variable or considered the clustering by acupuncturist in analysis. Trials in core clinical journals were more likely to predefine primary outcome (78.3% vs. 44.4%, P < 0.001), use multiple imputations for handling MPD (40% vs. 1.5%, P < 0.001), and use statistically advanced methods for assessing treatment effect at a single time point (26.1% vs. 2%, P = 0.001). ConclusionThe use of statistical methods among acupuncture RCTs is far from satisfactory. Our findings highlighted the need for researchers to carefully use the optimal statistical methods and for journal editors to strengthen the use of statistical methods.

The colon title in complementary and alternative medicine articles (1995–2016)

Recent research reveals a growing tendency for busy clinicians to rely on titles only in selecting papers relevant to therapeutic decisions. The implications of this have motivated much scholarship in the study of titles in medical journal articles, but despite expanding interest in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), titles in this area have received very little attention. This is despite the fact that CAM’s history and present contested status ought to make the evolution of its writing of particular interest to discourse analysts. The present paper considers the role played by the colon in titles for attracting readership, based on a study of three high-impact CAM journals, and analyzing frequency of use, length and authorship patterns, as well as a range of rhetorical and lexical choices. The findings show that, while colon titles reflect local constraints such as publication requirements, thus imposing a degree of uniformity across title styles, the need to capture the attention of an increasingly busy audience encourages idiosyncratic rhetorical and lexical choices.

Characteristic Analysis of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in Randomized Controlled Trials of Oncology: A Comparison of Published Studies.

Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been widely used by cancer patients and oncologists in the past decades. The present study aimed to examine and compare the characteristics and registration status of published studies in a sample of recently published CAM randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports of oncology in leading journals of 3 categories: general and internal medicine (GIM), clinical oncology (CO), and CAM. Methods: Articles published in the top 5 journals of the 3 categories from 2006 to 2015 were searched in PubMed. Basic characteristics, registration information, impact factor, and citations were identified and extracted from the included RCTs. Data were summarized by frequency, mean, and median and compared using χ2 test and Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results: A total of 59 RCTs were included; among them, 34 (58%) could be identified with a registration number. GIM journals (15) enjoyed the highest average number of citations per article, followed by CO (12) and CAM (3) journals (P < .0001). ClinicalTrials.gov was the most popular registry for these RCTs. Of the RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, 24% (4/17) of the published studies in CO journals put their results in the registry; however, no study in GIM and CAM journals put the result in the registry (P = .372). Conclusion: The top GIM, CO, and CAM journals rarely published CAM RCTs of oncology from 2006 to 2015, and the CAM articles of oncology were less cited. However, there was a clear improvement in the trial registration rate over the past decades.

Bibliometric and content analysis of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field specialized register of controlled trials

BackgroundThe identification of eligible controlled trials for systematic reviews of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) interventions can be difficult. To increase access to these difficult to locate trials, the Cochrane Collaboration Complementary Medicine Field (CAM Field) has established a specialized register of citations of CAM controlled trials. The objective of this study is to describe the sources and characteristics of citations included in the CAM Field specialized register.MethodsBetween 2006 and 2011, regular searches for citations of CAM trials in MEDLINE and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were supplemented with contributions of controlled trial citations from international collaborators. The specialized register was ‘frozen’ for analysis in 2011, and frequencies were calculated for publication date, language, journal, presence in MEDLINE, type of intervention, and type of medical condition.ResultsThe CAM Field specialized register increased in size from under 5,000 controlled trial citations in 2006 to 44,840 citations in 2011. Most citations (60%) were from 2000 or later, and the majority (71%) were reported in English; the next most common language was Chinese (23%). The journals with the greatest number of citations were CAM journals published in Chinese and non-CAM nutrition journals published in English. More than one-third of register citations (36%) were not indexed in MEDLINE. The most common CAM intervention type in the register was non-vitamin, non-mineral dietary supplements (e.g., glucosamine, fish oil) (34%), followed by Chinese herbal medicines (e.g., Astragalus membranaceus, Schisandra chinensis) (27%).ConclusionsThe availability of the CAM Field specialized register presents both opportunities and challenges for CAM systematic reviewers. While the register provides access to thousands of difficult to locate trial citations, many of these trials are of low quality and may overestimate treatment effects. When including these trials in systematic reviews, adequate analysis of their risk of bias is of utmost importance.

A Short Guide to Peer-Reviewed, MEDLINE-Indexed Complementary and Alternative Medicine Journals

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) comprises a multitude of disciplines, for example, acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, biofeedback, herbal medicine, and homeopathic medicine. While research on CAM interventions has increased and the CAM literature has proliferated since the mid-1990s, a number of our colleagues have expressed difficulties in deciding where to publish CAM articles. In response, we created a short guide to peer-reviewed MEDLINE-indexed journals that publish CAM articles. We examined numerous English-language sources to identify titles that met our criteria, whether specific to or overlapping CAM. A few of the resources in which we found the journal titles that we included are Alternative Medicine Foundation, American Holistic Nurses Association, CINAHL/Nursing Database, Journal Citation Reports database, MEDLINE, PubMed, and Research Council for Complementary Medicine. We organized the 69 selected titles for easy use by creating 2 user-friendly tables, one listing titles in alphabetical order and one listing them in topical categories. A few examples of the topical categories are Acupuncture, CAM (general), Chinese Medicine, Herbal/Plant/Phytotherapy, Neuroscience/Psychology, Nursing/Clinical Care. Our study is the first to list general CAM journals, specialty CAM journals, and overlapping mainstream journals that are peer reviewed, in English, and indexed in MEDLINE. Our goal was to assist both authors seeking publication and mainstream journal editors who receive an overabundance of publishable articles but must recommend that authors seek publication elsewhere due to space and priority issues. Publishing in journals indexed by and included in MEDLINE (or PubMed) ensures that citations to articles will be found easily.

Bibliometric analysis of complementary and alternative medicine research over three decades

This study applies bibliometric analysis to investigate the quantity and citation impact of scientific papers in the field of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The data are collected from 19 CAM journals in the Science Citation Index Expanded (SCI-E) database during 1980–2009, and 17,002 papers are identified for analysis. The study analyzes the document types, geographical and institutional distribution of the authorship, including international scientific collaboration. This study suggests that the major type of document is original article. The CAM papers are mostly published by North America, East Asia, and European countries, of which publications authored in East Asia are cited most. Country-wise, major contributors of CAM papers are from USA, People’s Republic of China, India, England and Germany. India has the highest CPP value, attracting high attentions in CAM community. This article also finds that international co-authorship in the CAM field has increased rapidly during this period. In addition, internationally collaborated publications generate higher citation impact than papers published by authors from single country. Finally, the research identifies productive institutions in CAM, and China Medical University located in Taiwan is the most productive organization.

Scientific Publications from Mainland China, Taiwan, and Hong Kong in Integrative and Complementary Medicine Journals: A Ten-Year Literature Survey

Practitioners and researchers from China, the largest user of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), have been publishing an increasing number of scientific articles in world-famous CAM journals in recent years. However, the status of CAM research in the three major regions of China, the Mainland, Taiwan and Hong Kong has, until now, not been reported. In this study, we compared articles from these three regions published in international CAM journals from 2000 to 2009 using PubMed database and the Journal Citation Reports. The study results showed that the number of published articles from Mainland China increased significantly from 2000 to 2009, particularly since 2005. Meanwhile, the number of published articles from Taiwan also increased, whereas those from Hong Kong remained steady. Clinical trials and randomized controlled trials from Chinese authors both took a small percentage of the total. The impact factors of the journals in which these articles were published suggested similar academic levels whereas the average number of citation of articles from the Mainland was less than those from the other two regions. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, American Journal of Chinese Medicine, Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine and Evidence-based Complementary and Alternative Medicine were the most popular journals for Chinese authors.

Publication activity in complementary and alternative medicine

In this article we analyse how research on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) break through into one established scientific arena, namely academic journals. With help from bibliometric methods we analyse publication of CAM articles, in the Medline database, during the period 1966–2007. We also analyse the general content of the articles and in what journals they get published. We conclude that the publication activity of CAM articles increases rapidly, especially in the late 1990s, and that the changing growth rate is not due to the general expansion of Medline. The character of CAM articles has changed towards more clinical oriented research, especially in subfields such as acupuncture and musculoskeletal manipulations. CAM articles are found both in core clinical journals and in specialized CAM journals. Even though a substantial part of the articles are published in CAM journals, we conclude that the increasing publication activity is not restricted to the expansion of these specialized journals.

A systematic review of how homeopathy is represented in conventional and CAM peer reviewed journals

BackgroundGrowing popularity of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the public sector is reflected in the scientific community by an increased number of research articles assessing its therapeutic effects. Some suggest that publication biases occur in mainstream medicine, and may also occur in CAM. Homeopathy is one of the most widespread and most controversial forms of CAM. The purpose of this study was to compare the representation of homeopathic clinical trials published in traditional science and CAM journals.MethodsLiterature searches were performed using Medline (PubMed), AMED and Embase computer databases. Search terms included "homeo-pathy, -path, and -pathic" and "clinical" and "trial". All articles published in English over the past 10 years were included. Our search yielded 251 articles overall, of which 46 systematically examined the efficacy of homeopathic treatment. We categorized the overall results of each paper as having either "positive" or "negative" outcomes depending upon the reported effects of homeopathy. We also examined and compared 15 meta-analyses and review articles on homeopathy to ensure our collection of clinical trials was reasonably comprehensive. These articles were found by inserting the term "review" instead of "clinical" and "trial".ResultsForty-six peer-reviewed articles published in a total of 23 different journals were compared (26 in CAM journals and 20 in conventional journals). Of those in conventional journals, 69% reported negative findings compared to only 30% in CAM journals. Very few articles were found to be presented in a "negative" tone, and most were presented using "neutral" or unbiased language.ConclusionA considerable difference exists between the number of clinical trials showing positive results published in CAM journals compared with traditional journals. We found only 30% of those articles published in CAM journals presented negative findings, whereas over twice that amount were published in traditional journals. These results suggest a publication bias against homeopathy exists in mainstream journals. Conversely, the same type of publication bias does not appear to exist between review and meta-analysis articles published in the two types of journals.

Reporting of ethical standards: Differences between complementary and orthodox medicine journals?

This study aimed at assessing whether there are differences in the reporting of ethical aspects of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and mainstream medical research. Review of published literature. Research department of medical school. Reports of ethical aspects including adherence to clinical guidelines, ethical approval from ethics committees, consent of the patient, declaration of conflict of interest, and declaration of funding for a study. We included 21 articles from CAM journals, as well as 16 from equal impact factor mainstream (EIF) journals and 27 from high impact factor (HIF) journals. A statistically significant difference was found in the reporting of ethical approval: 62% of all CAM articles, 75% of the EIF and 93% of the HIF journal articles reported approval from ethics committees [chi2 = (2, n = 64) 6.631, p<0.05]. Regarding the reporting of obtaining patients' consent there were no statistically significant differences: 48% of all CAM articles, 38% of the EIF mainstream and 67% of the HIF mainstream journal articles explicitly stated that patients signed a consent form [chi2 = (2, n = 64) 3.813, p>.05]. High impact factor journals were more likely to report on ethical standards than other journals on conflicts of interests and sponsorship. However, they were less likely to report a reference to ethical guidelines. Articles from CAM journals had more strict reporting requirements than mainstream medicine journals with comparable impact factors. Differences exist between complementary and orthodox medical journals in the reporting of ethical aspects of trial design.

A profile of journals of complementary and alternative medicine.

An increasing amount of medical scientific information is published in specialised journals on various subjects, including complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). There are indications that positive findings may be published at the expense of methodological rigour. The aim of this investigation was to provide a profile of CAM journals currently available on Medline, and monitor trends in publication practice between the years 1995 and 2000. Systematic literature searches were performed to identify all CAM journals indexed in Medline. Journals published in 1995 and 2000 were identified by their title and content. Primary CAM research journals only were included in this analysis. All articles were read, data were extracted and categorised according to pre-defined criteria, e.g. type of methodology used, subject area, and direction of outcome. The number of original articles increased from a total of 61 in 1995 to 97 in 2000 across all four journals, the number of papers reporting clinical trials decreased by 4% between 1995 and 2000, and the number of surveys increased more than six times. Less positive and more negative articles were published in 2000 compared with 1995. The subject areas of papers varied greatly. The majority of articles published in 1995 suggested positive treatment effects, a phenomenon that was still present in 2000 albeit less strong. CAM journals, and most likely CAM itself, are associated with a lack of clinical trials and a bias in favour of positive conclusions.

Evaluation of randomized controlled trials on complementary and alternative medicine.

Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is growing in all Western countries. The goal of this study was to evaluate quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CAM interventions for specific diagnoses to inform clinical decision making. MEDLINE and related databases were searched for CAM RCTs. Visual review was done of bibliographies, meta-analyses, and CAM journals. Inclusion criteria for review and scoring were blinded RCT, specified diagnosis and intervention, complete study published between January 1, 1966 and July 31, 1998 in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal. Two reviewers independently scored each study. More than 5,000 trials were found, but only 258 met all study inclusion criteria. The main cause for rejection (> 90%) was that the study was not an RCT or had no blinding. Mean score across 95 diagnosis/intervention categories was 44.7 (S.D. +/- 14.3) on a 100-point scale. Ordinary least-squares regression found date of publication, biostatistician as author or consultant, published in one of five widely read English-language medical journals and diagnosis/intervention category of hypertension/relaxation as significant predictors of higher scores. The overall quality of evidence for CAM RCTs is poor but improving slowly over time, about the same as that of biomedicine. Thus, most services are provided without good evidence of benefit.