Coulter Ian D, Khorsan Raheleh, Crawford Cindy, Hsiao An-Fu
RAND Corp, Santa Monica, Calif 90401-2138, USA.
J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2010 Nov-Dec;33(9):690-710. doi: 10.1016/j.jmpt.2010.08.007.
The purpose of this study was to review the research literature for the emerging field of Integrative Medicine/Integrative Health Care (IM) using the methods of systematic review.
We conducted an electronic literature search using PubMed, Allied and Complementary Medicine, BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, the entire Cochrane Library, MANTIS, Social SciSearch, SciSearch Cited Ref Sci, PsychInfo, CINAHL, and NCCAM grantee publications listings from database inception to May 2009, as well as searches of the gray literature. Available studies published in English language were included. Three independent reviewers rated each article and assessed the methodological quality of studies using the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network.
Our initial search yielded 11 591 citations. Of these, only 660 were judged to be relevant to the purpose of our search. Most articles deal with implementing and implemented programs. They focus on practice models, strategies for integrative health, the business case, and descriptive studies. This is followed in terms of numbers by conceptual/philosophical writings. These in turn are followed by research articles including randomized controlled trials, program evaluations, and cost-effectiveness studies. The literature reflects an emerging field in that it is focused more on how to create IM than on researching outcomes. However, the lack of definition and clarity about the term integrative medicine (also known as integrative health care) and the absence of taxonomy for models of IM make it very difficult to efficiently conduct systematic reviews of this field at the moment.
Our review revealed that most articles focused on describing practice models and conceptual/philosophical models, whereas there are fewer randomized controlled trials and observation studies. The lack of consensus on a clear definition and taxonomy for integrative health care represents a major methodological barrier on conducting systematic literature reviews and meta-analysis in this emerging field.
本研究旨在运用系统评价的方法,对整合医学/整合医疗保健(IM)这一新兴领域的研究文献进行综述。
我们使用PubMed、联合与补充医学数据库、生物学文摘数据库、EMBASE、整个考科蓝图书馆、MANTIS、社会科学文摘数据库、科学引文索引扩展版、心理学文摘数据库、护理学与健康领域数据库以及美国国立补充与替代医学中心(NCCAM)受资助项目出版物列表,从数据库建立至2009年5月进行了电子文献检索,同时还检索了灰色文献。纳入了以英文发表的现有研究。三位独立评审员对每篇文章进行评分,并使用苏格兰校际指南网络评估研究的方法学质量。
我们的初步检索得到11591条引文。其中,仅有660条被判定与我们的检索目的相关。大多数文章涉及实施和已实施的项目。它们聚焦于实践模式、整合健康策略、商业案例以及描述性研究。其次是概念性/哲学性著作,数量次之。接着是研究文章,包括随机对照试验、项目评估和成本效益研究。该文献反映出这是一个新兴领域,因为它更多地关注如何创建整合医学,而非研究结果。然而,整合医学(也称为整合医疗保健)这一术语缺乏定义和清晰度,且整合医学模式缺乏分类法,这使得目前很难对该领域进行有效的系统评价。
我们的综述表明,大多数文章聚焦于描述实践模式和概念性/哲学性模式,而随机对照试验和观察性研究较少。在整合医疗保健的明确定义和分类法上缺乏共识,这是在这个新兴领域进行系统文献综述和荟萃分析的一个主要方法学障碍。