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%) |
- 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.”
