Quality of natural product clinical trials

A comparison of those published in alternative medicine versus conventional medicine journals

Zara Risoldi Cochrane, Philip Gregory, Amy Wilson

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

1 Citation (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To compare the quality of natural product clinical trials published in alternative medicine journals versus those published in conventional medicine journals. Design: Systematic search and review of the literature. Randomized controlled trials of natural products were included if they were published in English between 2003 and 2008. Articles were categorized by their journal of publication (alternative medicine versus conventional medicine). Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality using guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration. The results with respect to the primary outcome (positive or negative) were also assessed. Results: Thirty articles were evaluated, 15 published in alternative medicine journals and 15 in conventional medicine journals. Of articles published in alternative medicine journals, 33.33% (n = 5) were considered low quality, and none were considered high quality. Of articles published in conventional medicine journals, 26.67% (n = 4) were considered low quality and 6.67% (n = 1) were considered high quality. Two thirds of all trials reviewed were of unclear quality, due to inadequate reporting of information relating to the study's methodology. Similar proportions of positive and negative primary outcomes were found in alternative and conventional medicine journals, and low-quality articles were not more likely to report a positive primary outcome (Fisher's exact test, two-tailed p = .287). Conclusion: The quality of natural product randomized controlled trials was similar among alternative and conventional medicine journals. Efforts should be made to improve the reporting of natural product clinical trials for accurate determinations of study quality to be possible.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)135-143
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Dietary Supplements
Volume8
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 2011

Fingerprint

alternative medicine
Complementary Therapies
Biological Products
clinical trials
medicine
Medicine
Clinical Trials
Randomized Controlled Trials
Publications
Guidelines

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Food Science
  • Nutrition and Dietetics
  • Pharmacology (medical)

Cite this

Quality of natural product clinical trials : A comparison of those published in alternative medicine versus conventional medicine journals. / Cochrane, Zara Risoldi; Gregory, Philip; Wilson, Amy.

In: Journal of Dietary Supplements, Vol. 8, No. 2, 06.2011, p. 135-143.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{72bf354d99dd42289d24b9870bb98034,
title = "Quality of natural product clinical trials: A comparison of those published in alternative medicine versus conventional medicine journals",
abstract = "Objective: To compare the quality of natural product clinical trials published in alternative medicine journals versus those published in conventional medicine journals. Design: Systematic search and review of the literature. Randomized controlled trials of natural products were included if they were published in English between 2003 and 2008. Articles were categorized by their journal of publication (alternative medicine versus conventional medicine). Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality using guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration. The results with respect to the primary outcome (positive or negative) were also assessed. Results: Thirty articles were evaluated, 15 published in alternative medicine journals and 15 in conventional medicine journals. Of articles published in alternative medicine journals, 33.33{\%} (n = 5) were considered low quality, and none were considered high quality. Of articles published in conventional medicine journals, 26.67{\%} (n = 4) were considered low quality and 6.67{\%} (n = 1) were considered high quality. Two thirds of all trials reviewed were of unclear quality, due to inadequate reporting of information relating to the study's methodology. Similar proportions of positive and negative primary outcomes were found in alternative and conventional medicine journals, and low-quality articles were not more likely to report a positive primary outcome (Fisher's exact test, two-tailed p = .287). Conclusion: The quality of natural product randomized controlled trials was similar among alternative and conventional medicine journals. Efforts should be made to improve the reporting of natural product clinical trials for accurate determinations of study quality to be possible.",
author = "Cochrane, {Zara Risoldi} and Philip Gregory and Amy Wilson",
year = "2011",
month = "6",
doi = "10.3109/19390211.2011.561823",
language = "English",
volume = "8",
pages = "135--143",
journal = "Journal of Dietary Supplements",
issn = "1939-0211",
publisher = "Informa Healthcare",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Quality of natural product clinical trials

T2 - A comparison of those published in alternative medicine versus conventional medicine journals

AU - Cochrane, Zara Risoldi

AU - Gregory, Philip

AU - Wilson, Amy

PY - 2011/6

Y1 - 2011/6

N2 - Objective: To compare the quality of natural product clinical trials published in alternative medicine journals versus those published in conventional medicine journals. Design: Systematic search and review of the literature. Randomized controlled trials of natural products were included if they were published in English between 2003 and 2008. Articles were categorized by their journal of publication (alternative medicine versus conventional medicine). Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality using guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration. The results with respect to the primary outcome (positive or negative) were also assessed. Results: Thirty articles were evaluated, 15 published in alternative medicine journals and 15 in conventional medicine journals. Of articles published in alternative medicine journals, 33.33% (n = 5) were considered low quality, and none were considered high quality. Of articles published in conventional medicine journals, 26.67% (n = 4) were considered low quality and 6.67% (n = 1) were considered high quality. Two thirds of all trials reviewed were of unclear quality, due to inadequate reporting of information relating to the study's methodology. Similar proportions of positive and negative primary outcomes were found in alternative and conventional medicine journals, and low-quality articles were not more likely to report a positive primary outcome (Fisher's exact test, two-tailed p = .287). Conclusion: The quality of natural product randomized controlled trials was similar among alternative and conventional medicine journals. Efforts should be made to improve the reporting of natural product clinical trials for accurate determinations of study quality to be possible.

AB - Objective: To compare the quality of natural product clinical trials published in alternative medicine journals versus those published in conventional medicine journals. Design: Systematic search and review of the literature. Randomized controlled trials of natural products were included if they were published in English between 2003 and 2008. Articles were categorized by their journal of publication (alternative medicine versus conventional medicine). Two independent reviewers evaluated study quality using guidelines from the Cochrane Collaboration. The results with respect to the primary outcome (positive or negative) were also assessed. Results: Thirty articles were evaluated, 15 published in alternative medicine journals and 15 in conventional medicine journals. Of articles published in alternative medicine journals, 33.33% (n = 5) were considered low quality, and none were considered high quality. Of articles published in conventional medicine journals, 26.67% (n = 4) were considered low quality and 6.67% (n = 1) were considered high quality. Two thirds of all trials reviewed were of unclear quality, due to inadequate reporting of information relating to the study's methodology. Similar proportions of positive and negative primary outcomes were found in alternative and conventional medicine journals, and low-quality articles were not more likely to report a positive primary outcome (Fisher's exact test, two-tailed p = .287). Conclusion: The quality of natural product randomized controlled trials was similar among alternative and conventional medicine journals. Efforts should be made to improve the reporting of natural product clinical trials for accurate determinations of study quality to be possible.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955797079&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955797079&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.3109/19390211.2011.561823

DO - 10.3109/19390211.2011.561823

M3 - Article

VL - 8

SP - 135

EP - 143

JO - Journal of Dietary Supplements

JF - Journal of Dietary Supplements

SN - 1939-0211

IS - 2

ER -