| Literature DB >> 23662117 |
K Philip Reuter1, Thorolf E R Weißhuhn, Claudia M Witt.
Abstract
Background. Little is known about Tibetan medicine (TM), in Western industrialized countries. Objectives. To provide a systematic review of the clinical studies on TM available in the West. Data Sources. Seven literature databases, published literature lists, citation tracking, and contacts to experts and institutions. Study Eligibility Criteria. Studies in English, German, French, or Spanish presenting clinical trial results. Participants. All patients of the included studies. Interventions. Tibetan medicine treatment. Study Appraisal and Synthesis Methods. Included studies were described quantitatively; their quality was assessed with the DIMDI HTA checklist; for RCTs the Jadad score was used. Results. 40 studies from 39 publications were included. They were very heterogeneous regarding study type and size, treated conditions, treatments, measured outcomes, and quality. Limitations. No Russian, Tibetan, or Chinese publications were included. Possible publication bias. Conclusions. The number of clinical trials on TM available in the West is small; methods and results are heterogeneous. Implications of Key Findings. Higher quality larger trials are needed, as is a general overview of traditional usage to inform future clinical trials. Systematic Review Registration Number. None.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23662117 PMCID: PMC3638583 DOI: 10.1155/2013/213407
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1Tibetan medicine in geography and history. Map based on [7, 8, 17–22].
DIMDI HTA checklist items.
| Item* | Item no. (label)** |
|---|---|
| (A) Selection of participants | Participants |
| (1) Were the criteria for in-/exclusion defined sufficiently and clearly? | A1 (in-/exclusion) |
| (2) Were the criteria for in-/exclusion defined before intervention? | A2 (predefined) |
| (3) Was the health status recorded in a valid and reliable way? | A3 (health status) |
| (4) Were the diagnostic criteria of the disease described? | A4 (diagnostic criteria) |
| (5) Were the studied/exposed patients representative for the majority of the exposed population or the “standard users” of the intervention? | A5 (representativity) |
|
| |
| (B) Allocation and study participation | Allocation |
| (1) Were the exposed/cases and nonexposed/controls from the same base population? | B1 (basic population) |
| (2) Were intervention/exposed and control/nonexposed groups comparable at baseline? | B2 (comparable) |
| (3) Was allocation randomized, with a standardized procedure? | B3 (randomization) |
| (4) Was randomization blinded? | B4 (blinded randomization) |
| (5) Were known/possible confounders considered at baseline? | B5 (confounders) |
|
| |
| (C) Intervention/exposition | Intervention |
| (1) Were intervention or exposition recorded in a valid, reliable, and similar way? | C1 (recording) |
| (2) Apart from intervention, were intervention and control groups treated similarly? | C2 (similar treatment) |
| (3) In case of other treatments, were they recorded in a valid and reliable way? | C3 (other treatments) |
| (4) For RCTs: were placebos used for the control group? | C4 (placebo use) |
| (5) For RCTs: was the way of placebo administration documented? | C5 (placebo documented) |
|
| |
| (D) Study administration | Administration |
| (1) Are there indications for “overmatching”? | D1 (overmatching) |
| (2) In multicentre studies: were the diagnostic and therapeutic methods and the outcome recording in the centres identical? | D2 (multicentre) |
| (3) Was if assured that participants did not crossover between intervention and control group? | D3 (no crossover) |
|
| |
| (E) Outcome recording | Outcome |
| (1) Were patient-centred outcome parameters used? | E1 (patient-centred) |
| (2) Were the outcomes recorded in a valid and reliable way? | E2 (recording) |
| (3) Was outcome recording blinded? | E3 (blinded outcomes) |
| (4) For case series: was the distribution of prognostic factors recorded sufficiently? | E4 (prognostic factors) |
|
| |
| (F) Drop-outs | Drop-outs |
| (1) Was the response rate in intervention/control group sufficient, or, for cohort studies, could a sufficient part of the cohort be tracked for the full study duration? | F1 (evaluable number) |
| (2) Were the reasons for the dropouts of participants stated? | F2 (reasons) |
| (3) Were the outcomes of dropouts described and included in the analysis? | F3 (outcomes) |
| (4) If differences were found: were they significant? | F4 (significance) |
| (5) If differences were found: were they relevant? | F5 (relevance) |
|
| |
| (G) Statistical analysis | Statistics |
| (1) Were the described analytic methods correct and the information sufficient for a flawless analysis? | G1 (correct) |
| (2) Were confidence intervals given for means and for significance tests? | G2 (CIs given) |
| (3) Were the results presented in graphical form, and were the underlying values stated? | G3 (graphics) |
*Translated from [35], **used in Table 3.
Figure 2The literature search. References from indexing services were collected first, then other sources were added.
Included studies.
| Study | Disease (diagnostic system)** | Participants (mean age), drop-outs*** | Duration of intervention or study | (1) Main outcome | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Aschoff et al. 1997 | Migraine (BM) | I: 22; D: 0 | 6 months (and longer?) | (1) Severity of attacks reduced by 82% | Very brief documentation; only subjective outcomes |
|
| |||||
|
Bommeli et al. 2001 | Various (78% patients w/arteriosclerosis) (BM, TM) | I: 147; D: 18 | From few days to 13.5 years | (1) Improvement of complaints in % of patients: peripheral artery occlusive disease in 94%, coronary heart disease in 92%, chronic venous insufficiency in 91%, arthrosis in 80% | Patients from 15 physicians, no demographics, no monotherapy, success not clearly attributable to P28 |
|
| |||||
|
Brunner-La Roccaet al. 2005 | Mild hypercholesterolaemia (BM) | I: 30; C: 30; D: 0 | 4 weeks + 15 d followup | (1) Total cholesterol unchanged | Participants not typical patients |
|
| |||||
|
Brzosko et al. 1991 | Chronic juvenile arthritis (BM) | I1: 12 (11 years); I2: 7; C1: 10 (healthy); C2: 10 (in remission) | I1: 6 weeks; I2: 4 weeks | (1) Joint pain and swelling (Ritchie Index): improved in 75%–83% of P28 patients, in 86% of thymus extract patients | Control is no standard therapy; comparison with healthy probands; immunological parameters not very relevant for contemporary diagnostics |
|
| |||||
|
Brzosko and Jankowski 1992 | Hepatitis B (BM) | I: 178 including 52 children | 2 years (intervention), 10 years (study) | (1) “Biochemical markers” (not specified) improved in ~90% | Very brief description of patients and outcomes; no statement about other therapies |
|
| |||||
| Changbar 1998 | Chronic aplastic anaemia (BM, TM) | I: 1 man (63); D: 0 | 15 months | (1) Haemoglobin (increase from 3.1 to 10.4 mg/dL) | |
|
| |||||
|
Cohen et al. 2004 | Mental symptoms accompanying lymphomas (BM) | I: 19; C: 19; D: 9 | 7 weeks + 3 months follow-up | (1) Sleep disorder improved | Many outcomes in small population increased probability of significant results caused by random variations; high drop-out rate; low compliance |
|
| |||||
| Feldhaus 2004 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (BM, unspecified CAM) | I: 1 woman (61); D: 0 | 1 year | (1) General condition much improved after 8 months | No attribution of effect to TM possible |
|
| |||||
| Feldhaus 2006 | Chronic constipation of tetraplegic patients (BM, unspecified CAM) | I: 3; D: 0 | 1–3 months | (1) Constipation cured in all cases | No attribution of effect to TM possible |
|
| |||||
|
Flück and Bubb 1970 | Chronic constipation (BM) | I: 285 (256 outpatients, 29 inpatients) | “Several” weeks | (1) Symptoms improved in 82% | Insufficient description of population, inclusion criteria, and diagnostics |
|
| |||||
| Füllemann 2006 | Chronic dental pulpitis (BM) | I: 53; D: 4 | 15 days | (1) Pain-free within 1 month in 55% | Comparison with expectation from experience; 4 drop-outs because of incompliance might have caused false positive result |
|
| |||||
|
Gladysz et al. 1993 | Hepatitis B (BM) | I: 34 | 12 months | (1) Serological and liver function parameters improved in 76.5%, liver biopsy improved in 55.9% | Authors claim elimination potential for HBeAg and HBV-DNA similar to interferon standard therapy; unwanted effects not stated |
|
| |||||
| Günsche 2005 | Bipolar Disorder (BM) | I: 1 woman (44); D: 0 | 11 months | (1) and (2) Daytime sleepiness, concentration difficulties, and apathy much improved within 6 weeks, cured after 11 months | Only subjective outcomes |
|
| |||||
| Hürlimann 1979/1 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (BM) | I: 13; C: 11; D: 0 | 12 weeks | (1) Pain free walking distance improved by 54% | Good study design, homogenous groups, very brief presentation of results, valid results |
|
| |||||
| Hürlimann 1979/2 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (BM) | I: 10; D: 0 | Duration not stated | (1) Rest pain improved in 70% | Very brief presentation, duration not stated |
|
| |||||
|
Jankowski et al. 1986 | Recurrent respiratory tract infections (BM) | I: 61 (2 years); D: 0 | 8 weeks | (1) Frequency and intensity of infections reduced in 80% | Immunological analysis did not include all participants |
|
| |||||
|
Jankowski et al. 1991 | Recurrent respiratory tract infections (BM) | I: 19; C: 10 (healthy); (3 years); D: 0 | 8 weeks | (1) Bactericide index (“spontaneous bactericidal activity”) improved in 84% | Effect not clearly attributable because of healthy controls; tested bacteria not typical for disease; unusual outcome parameter |
|
| |||||
|
Jankowski et al. 1992 | Recurrent respiratory tract infections (BM) | I: 305 (4 years) | 10 weeks | (1) Frequency and intensity of infections reduced in 72% | Possibly republished data from earlier studies; immunological results from 48 participants only (randomized?) |
|
| |||||
|
Korwin-Piotrowskaet al. | Multiple Sclerosis (BM) | I: 50; C: 50; D: 0 | 12 months | (1) Clinical course (relapse frequency or progression) improved in 44% | Other treatment in placebo group |
|
| |||||
|
Leeman et al. 2001 | Breast cancer (BM, TM) | I: 11; DI: 2 | 1 year | (1) No unwanted effects grade III or IV | No peer-reviewed publication; no statements about drop-out's outcomes (possibly disease progress) |
|
| |||||
| Li 2001 | Helicobacter pylori associated gastritis (BM, TM) | I: 86 | Max. 8 weeks, follow-up of 24 patients after 5 months | (1) Helicobacter test not changed | Therapy according to Tibetan diagnostics in 9 “medication groups”; selection of followup group not stated |
|
| |||||
| Mansfeld 1988 | Recurrent respiratory tract infections (BM) | I: 218; C: 205; (11 years); D: 3 | 6 weeks, then observation for 6–12 months | (1) Frequency and severity of infections tended to improve (not significant) | Parents assessed infection severity; other therapies might have masked P28 effect |
|
| |||||
|
Mehlsen et al. 1995 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease | I: 20; C: 20; D: 4 | 4 months | (1) Max. walking distance improved | Excellent study design |
|
| |||||
|
Miller et al. 2009 | Post-partum haemorrhage (BM, TM) | I: 480; C: 487; D: 7 | Single dose | (1) Misoprostol superior to Zhi Byed 11 for: Hemorrhage, maternal death, need for uterotonics | |
|
| |||||
|
Namdul et al. 2001 | Type 2 Diabetes (BM, TM) | I: 100; C: 100; D: 88 (64 after 12 weeks) | 24 weeks | (1) Fasting blood glucose reduced | Intervention group more ill despite randomization; values of intervention group taken as baseline; high drop-out rate without further analyses |
|
| |||||
| Neshar 2000 | Diabetes mellitus (BM, TM) | I: 82; D: 0 (study of patient files) | Min. 6 months | (1) Blood glucose improved in 70%, stabilized in 100% | Regarding general improvement discrimination between TM alone or with additional biomedicine: it is not clear whether biomedicine was given at baseline or became necessary during study; most data refer to a subpopulation of 24 that is not described: selection bias? |
|
| |||||
| Neshar 2007 | Cancer (BM, TM) | I: 647; D: 340 | Varying duration | (1) General health state much improved | Selection of patients not representative, high drop-out rate |
|
| |||||
| Pauwvliet et al. 1997 | Rheumatic disorders (BM, TM) | I: 35; D: 7 | 6 months | (1) Severity of disease improved | High drop-out rate, 4 of them because of aggravation; prepublication without laboratory data |
|
| |||||
|
Prusek et al. 1987 | Recurrent respiratory tract infections (BM) | I: 30; C1: 23; C2: 10; C3: 29; C4: 25; C5: 20; (4 years); D: 0 | 11 months | (1) Frequency and severity of infections improved in 57% (less than controls) | Comparability of groups unclear (allocation by clinical indication); statistical evaluation not sufficient |
|
| |||||
| Rüttgers 2004 | Chronic venous insufficiency (BM) | I: 1; D: 0 | 3 months and follow-up | (1) Inflammation improved | |
|
| |||||
| Ryan 1997 | Arthritis (BM, TM) | I: 15; C: 15; D: 2 | 3 months | (1) Motility of extremities improved, in 86% of the matched pairs the TM patient better than respective control | Inclusion by Tibetan diagnosis; no further details to matched pairs; only two pairs of arthritis patients |
|
| |||||
|
Sallon et al. 1998 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (BM) | I: 37; C: 35; D: 13 | 6 months | (1) Ankle-brachial-index unchanged | |
|
| |||||
|
Sallon et al. 2002 | Chronic constipation (BM) | I: 42; C: 38; D: 19 | 12 weeks | (1) Improved intestinal passage | Comprehensive study documentation |
|
| |||||
|
Samochowiec et al. 1987 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (BM) | I: 55; C: 45 | 4 months | (1) Improved max. walking distance | No patient demographics; comparison only to baseline, not between groups |
|
| |||||
|
Sangmo et al. 2007 | Hepatitis B (BM, TM) | I: 24; C: 25; D: 1 | 6 months | (1) No differences between groups | Special TM group more ill at baseline; almost no appraisal of results; possibly overtesting; very comprehensive documentation also of Tibetan diagnostics |
|
| |||||
| Schleicher 1990 | Acquired immune deficiency syndrome (BM) | I: 15; D: 5 | 6 months | (1) Total T cells stabilized | No patient-centred parameters; prognostically most relevant CD4 cell count and viral load not documented |
|
| |||||
|
Schrader et al. 1985 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (BM) | I: 27; C: 26; D: 10 | 4 months | (1) Improved max. walking distance | |
|
| |||||
|
Smulski and Wojcicki 1994 | Peripheral arterial occlusive disease (BM, TM) | I: 50; C: 50; D: 7 | 4 months | (1) Max. walking distance improved | Comparison of groups only for walking distance |
|
| |||||
|
Split et al. 1998 | Apoplexy (BM) | I: 60; C: 60 | 14 days | (1) Better general status (Karnofsky functional efficiency scale, KFES) | Age not stated, no blinding, no placebo, comparison only understandable for KFES, therapy effect not discernible from placebo effect |
|
| |||||
|
Wojcicki et al. 1986 | Coronary heart disease, angina pectoris (BM) | I: 50 | 6 weeks | (1) Nitroglycerine need reduced | No randomization (contrary to publication statement); description difficult to understand; selection of patients from larger population not clear; short verum period |
*(r)CS: (retrospective) case study; CT: controlled trial (not randomized); OS: observational study; RCT: randomized controlled trial (with Jadad sum score); MC: multicentre study.
**BM: Biomedicine (the “Western” “conventional” medicine); TM: Tibetan medicine; CAM: complementary or alternative medicine.
***I: intervention group (TM); C: control group (other treatment, placebo); D: total dropouts.
****U: unit (tablet, capsule, or pill); /d: per day; P28: Padma 28; PL: Padma Lax.
DIMDI HTA checklist results.
| Participants | Allocation | Intervention | Administration | Outcome | Drop-outs | Statistics | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Study |
| A1 (in-/exclusion) | A2 (pre-defined) | A3 (health status) | A4 (diagnostic criteria) | A5 (representativity) | B1 (basic population) | B2 (comparable) | B3 (randomization) | B4 (blinded randomization) | B5 (confounders) | C1 (recording) | C2 (similar treatment) | C3 (other treatments) | C4 (placebo use) | C5 (placebo documented) | D1 (overmatching) | D2 (multicentre) | D3 (no crossover) | E1 (patient-centred) | E2 (recording) | E3 (blinded outcomes) | E4 (prognostic factors) | F1 (evaluable number) | F2 (reasons) | F3 (outcomes) | F4 (significance) | F5 (relevance) | G1 (correct) | G2 (CIs given) | G3 (graphics) | ||
| Brunner-LaRocca et al. 2005 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | N | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | Y | · | · | Y | N | Y | |||
| Cohen et al. 2004 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | N | · | N | · | Y | Y | Y | N | · | ? | Y | N | · | · | Y | Y | N | |||
| Hürlimann1979/1 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | ? | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Korwin-Piotrowska et al. 1992 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | ? | N | Y | Y | N | N | N | · | N | · | Y | Y | Y | ? | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Mehlsen et al. 1995 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | Y | Y | N | |||
| Miller2009 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | ? | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Randomized controlled trials | Namdul et al. 2001 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | ? | ? | Y | Y | · | N | · | N | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | · | Y | N | N | · | · | Y | N | N | ||
| Ryan1997 | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | Y | Y | ? | ? | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | · | N | · | Y | Y | Y | N | · | Y | N | N | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Sallon et al. 1998 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | ? | Y | N | · | · | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Sallon et al. 2002 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | Y | N | Y | |||
| Samochowiec et al. 1987 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | Y | |||
| Sangmo et al. 2007 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | ? | ? | ? | N | Y | · | N | · | N | · | Y | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Schrader et al. 1985 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Smulski and Wojcicki 1994 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | Y | Y | Y | |||
| Split et al. 1998 | Y | Y | N | N | ? | Y | Y | ? | ? | ? | Y | Y | · | N | · | N | · | Y | Y | Y | ? | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Brzosko et al. 1991 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | · | N | Y | Y | · | · | · | N | · | Y | Y | Y | N | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Controlled | Jankowski et al. 1991 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | N | · | N | Y | N | · | · | · | N | · | Y | N | Y | N | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | ||
| Mansfeld1988 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | Y | ? | N | · | ? | Y | Y | · | · | · | N | · | Y | Y | ? | N | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | Y | |||
| Prusek et al. 1987 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | N | · | N | Y | ? | · | · | · | N | N | Y | Y | ? | N | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Wojcicki et al. 1986 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | N | · | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | N | · | Y | Y | Y | N | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Aschoff et al. 1997 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | N | N | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Brzosko and Jankowski 1992 | Y | Y | ? | N | Y | · | · | · | · | ? | Y | ? | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Flück and Bubb 1970 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | N | Y | ? | · | · | · | · | Y | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Füllemann 2006 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | N | N | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | Y | Y | N | N | Y | N | N | |||
| Gladysz et al. 1993 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | N | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Hürlimann 1979/2 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | ? | Y | ? | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | N | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Observation studies | Jankowski et al. 1986 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | N | Y | ? | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | N | ||
| Jankowski et al. 1992 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | N | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Leeman at al. 2001 | Y | Y | Y | N | Y | · | · | · | · | N | N | N | N | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | N | N | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Li 2001 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Neshar 2000 | Y | N | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | N | · | · | ? | · | · | · | · | N | N | N | |||
| Neshar 2007 | Y | Y | ? | Y | ? | · | · | · | · | ? | Y | · | · | · | · | · | Y | · | Y | Y | · | N | Y | N | N | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Pauwvlietet al. 1997 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | ? | Y | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Schleicher 1990 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | N | Y | ? | N | · | · | · | · | · | N | Y | · | · | ? | · | · | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Bommeli et al. 2001 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | N | N | · | · | · | Y | · | Y | Y | · | N | Y | Y | N | · | · | Y | N | N | |||
| Changbar 1998 | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | · | · | · | Y | · | · | · | Y | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | N | |||
| Case studies | Feldhaus 2004 | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | · | · | ? | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | N | ||
| Feldhaus 2006 | Y | Y | Y | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | ? | Y | N | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | N | |||
| Günsche 2005 | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | · | · | Y | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | N | · | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | N | |||
| Rüttgers 2004 | Y | · | Y | Y | N | · | · | · | · | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | · | Y | N | · | N | Y | · | · | · | · | · | · | N | |||
Y: yes; N: no; ?: unclear/not stated; ·: not applicable.
*Full item text in Table 1.
Jadad Score Results for Included RCTs.
| Randomization | Blinding | Drop-outs | Sum score | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brunner-La Rocca et al. 2005 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Cohen et al. 2004 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Hürlimann 1979/1 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 3 |
| Korwin-Piotrowska et al. 1992 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Mehlsen et al. 1995 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Miller 2009 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Namdul et al. 2001 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Ryan 1997 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Sallon et al. 1998 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Sallon et al. 2002 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Samochowiec 1987 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Sangmo et al. 2007 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |
| Schrader et al. 1985 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 4 |
| Smulski and Wojcicki 1994 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 5 |
| Split et al. 1998 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 |