Poor Reviews May Not Give a True Reflection of the Evidence

• Published in: Physiotherapy Vol. 87; no. 10; pp. 549 - 551
• Main Authors: Hopwood, Val, White, Peter
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: London Elsevier Ltd 01.10.2001; Chartered Society of Physiotherapy
• Subjects: Acupuncture; Biological and medical sciences; Medical sciences; meta-analysis; Miscellaneous; Physiotherapy; quality; Radiotherapy. Instrumental treatment. Physiotherapy. Reeducation. Rehabilitation, orthophony, crenotherapy. Diet therapy and various other treatments (general aspects); Systematic review; meta-analysis; acupuncture; Systematic review; quality; Human; Analgesia; Pain; Folk medicine; Methodology; Oriental medicine; Quality; Acupuncture; Review; Bibliographic review; Metaanalysis
• DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9406(05)65453-3
• ISSN: 0031-9406

The predominance of poor systematic reviews in the current research literature is an unfortunate development, particularly in the light of the undoubtedly excellent work of the Cochrane Collaboration. The quality of any review depends entirely on the quality of the research work included. A common dismissive comment about this type of review is ‘Garbage in, garbage out'. It is therefore the responsibility of all researchers to make sure that this cannot apply to their own work. A literature review of the effectiveness of four modalities commonly used to relieve pain was published in the August 2001 issue of Physiotherapy. That paper originated as part of an informal workshop held at the World Confederation for Physical Therapy Congress in Japan in May 2000. This should have been made clear in the published format, as several aspects of it, particularly with regard to acupuncture, may cause concern. This opinion piece was originally written as a letter in response to publication of the WCPT report. Unfortunately the shortcomings evident in it are quite common and should lead us to consider very carefully any claims as to clinical efficacy, or lack ot it, in the acupuncture field.