Skip to main content

Advertisement

Table 1 Types of the MEDLINE Reports Included in the Analysis

From: The influence of social context on the treatment outcomes of complementary and alternative medicine: the case of acupuncture and herbal medicine in Japan and the U.S.

Report Type Reports about Acupuncture Reports about Herbal Medicine
from Japan from the U.S. from Japan from the U.S.
Clinical Trials 10 (8.3%) 27 (4.4%) 42 (3.9%) 48 (2.0%)
Case Reports 5 (4.2%) 13 (2.1%) 12 (1.1%) 54 (2.2%)
Professional Opinions 3 (2.5%) 45 (7.3%) 31 (2.9%) 176 (7.2%)
Reviews 13 (10.8%) 110 (17.8%) 58 (5.4%) 331 (13.5%)
Historical Articles 33 (27.5%) 39 (6.3%) 97 (8.9%) 178 (7.2%)
News Articles 0 (0.0%) 24 (3.9%) 6 (0.6%) 194 (7.9%)
Unclassified 51 (42.5%) 343 (57.1%) 825 (77.0%) 1433 (59.4%)
Total 115 (100.0%) 601 (100.0%) 1071 (100.0%) 2414 (100.0%)
  1. Note: Report types are based on the categories in the “Article Type” filter in MEDLINE (accessible online at PubMed). The MEDLINE classification system has dozens of categories that are not unidimensional or mutually exclusive. Some of them are relevant to considering the medical scientific quality of the reports (e.g. report types included in this table), while others are not (e.g. funding sources of the reports). I include controlled clinical trials, randomized controlled trials, and clinical trials under the type of “clinical trials;” “case reports,” historical articles,” and “news articles” are distinct categories of themselves as classified in the system; “professional opinions” include comments, letters, editorials, interviews, and addresses.” “Reviews” include unsystematic reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses. When a report is not indexed with any of these categories, it is grouped into “unclassified.”