Coulter Ian D, Khorsan Raheleh, Crawford Cindy, Hsiao An-Fu
RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA, USA. ; University of California Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA. ; Southern California University of Health Sciences, Whittier, CA, USA.
Integr Med Insights. 2013 Jun 27;8:19-28. doi: 10.4137/IMI.S11570. Print 2013.
This article is based on an extensive review of integrative medicine (IM) and integrative health care (IHC). Since there is no general agreement of what constitutes IM/IHC, several major problems were identified that make the review of work in this field problematic. In applying the systematic review methodology, we found that many of those captured articles that used the term integrative medicine were in actuality referring to adjunctive, complementary, or supplemental medicine. The objective of this study was to apply a sensitivity analysis to demonstrate how the results of a systematic review of IM and IHC will differ according to what inclusion criteria is used based on the definition of IM/IHC. By analyzing 4 different scenarios, the authors show that, due to unclear usage of these terms, results vary dramatically, exposing an inconsistent literature base for this field.
本文基于对整合医学（IM）和整合医疗保健（IHC）的广泛综述。由于对于什么构成IM/IHC尚无普遍共识，因此确定了几个主要问题，这些问题使得对该领域工作的综述变得困难重重。在应用系统综述方法时，我们发现许多使用“整合医学”一词的收录文章实际上指的是辅助、补充或替代医学。本研究的目的是进行敏感性分析，以证明根据基于IM/IHC定义所使用的纳入标准，IM和IHC系统综述的结果将如何不同。通过分析4种不同情况，作者表明，由于这些术语的使用不明确，结果差异很大，揭示了该领域文献基础的不一致性。
