Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”

Systematic reviews cling to the doctrine that science has an updating databank and attempt to identify all available evidence by featured eligibility criteria to find the answer to a unique scientific question. Therefore, to reach this aim, these researches should use a wise method and comprehensive...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Shirzad, Meysam, Abbassian, Alireza
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2022
Materias:
Letter to the Editor
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8905999/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35264174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12960-022-00718-z
_version_ 1784665309012033536
author Shirzad, Meysam
Abbassian, Alireza
author_facet Shirzad, Meysam
Abbassian, Alireza
author_sort Shirzad, Meysam
collection PubMed
description Systematic reviews cling to the doctrine that science has an updating databank and attempt to identify all available evidence by featured eligibility criteria to find the answer to a unique scientific question. Therefore, to reach this aim, these researches should use a wise method and comprehensive search strategy, as they are widely used to guide clinical and political decisions and the establishment of future researches. We would like to appreciate Jenny Carè, Amie Steel, and Jon Wardle for the valuable article “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”. Some important missed search terms in the field of traditional medicine names and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) regulation concepts were discussed in the article.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8905999
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-89059992022-03-18 Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review” Shirzad, Meysam Abbassian, Alireza Hum Resour Health Letter to the Editor Systematic reviews cling to the doctrine that science has an updating databank and attempt to identify all available evidence by featured eligibility criteria to find the answer to a unique scientific question. Therefore, to reach this aim, these researches should use a wise method and comprehensive search strategy, as they are widely used to guide clinical and political decisions and the establishment of future researches. We would like to appreciate Jenny Carè, Amie Steel, and Jon Wardle for the valuable article “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”. Some important missed search terms in the field of traditional medicine names and traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) regulation concepts were discussed in the article. BioMed Central 2022-03-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8905999/ /pubmed/35264174 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12960-022-00718-z Text en © The Author(s) 2022 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Letter to the Editor
Shirzad, Meysam
Abbassian, Alireza
Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”
title Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”
title_full Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”
title_fullStr Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”
title_full_unstemmed Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”
title_short Methodological issues on “Stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”
title_sort methodological issues on “stakeholder attitudes to the regulation of traditional and complementary medicine professions: a systematic review”
topic Letter to the Editor
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8905999/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35264174
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12960-022-00718-z
work_keys_str_mv AT shirzadmeysam methodologicalissuesonstakeholderattitudestotheregulationoftraditionalandcomplementarymedicineprofessionsasystematicreview
AT abbassianalireza methodologicalissuesonstakeholderattitudestotheregulationoftraditionalandcomplementarymedicineprofessionsasystematicreview

Ejemplares similares