Searching biomedical databases on complementary medicine: the use of controlled vocabulary among authors, indexers and investigators

BACKGROUND: The optimal retrieval of a literature search in biomedicine depends on the appropriate use of Medical Subject Headings (MeSH), descriptors and keywords among authors and indexers. We hypothesized that authors, investigators and indexers in four biomedical databases are not consistent in their use of terminology in Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM). METHODS: Based on a research question addressing the validity of spinal palpation for the diagnosis of neuromuscular dysfunction, we developed four search concepts with their respective controlled vocabulary and key terms. We calculated the frequency of MeSH, descriptors, and keywords used by authors in titles and abstracts in comparison to standard practices in semantic and analytic indexing in MEDLINE, MANTIS, CINAHL, and Web of Science. RESULTS: Multiple searches resulted in the final selection of 38 relevant studies that were indexed at least in one of the four selected databases. Of the four search concepts, validity showed the greatest inconsistency in terminology among authors, indexers and investigators. The use of spinal terms showed the greatest consistency. Of the 22 neuromuscular dysfunction terms provided by the investigators, 11 were not contained in the controlled vocabulary and six were never used by authors or indexers. Most authors did not seem familiar with the controlled vocabulary for validity in the area of neuromuscular dysfunction. Recently, standard glossaries have been developed to assist in the research development of manual medicine. CONCLUSIONS: Searching biomedical databases for CAM is challenging due to inconsistent use of controlled vocabulary and indexing procedures in different databases. A standard terminology should be used by investigators in conducting their search strategies and authors when writing titles, abstracts and submitting keywords for publications

Use of complementary and alternative medicine among the ethnic elderly.

We sought to explore whether the elderly are high users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to determine which modalities they use. We also sought to describe patterns and positive predictors of CAM use among 3 ethnically diverse groups of community-residing elderly.A 7-page questionnaire was developed and translated into Spanish and Vietnamese.A population of 525 community-residing elderly completed personal interviews.Two hundred and fifty-one respondents (47.8%) reported using CAM over the past year. Dietary supplements (47.4%), chiropractic (16.3%), home remedies (15.9%), acupuncture (15.1%), and Oriental medicine (12.8%), were the most frequently cited therapies. The majority of CAM users (62.4%) did not inform their physicians that they were using it, but 58% consulted their physician for the same problem for which they used CAM. Family and friends were most relied upon for making the choice of therapy. Among the 3 ethnic groups studied, Asians were higher users of acupuncture (28%) and Oriental medicine (31%), Hispanics were higher users of dietary supplements (56%), home remedies (25%), and curanderos (8%), while white non-Hispanics were higher users of chiropractic (42%), massage (20%), vitamins (20%), diet (17%), and psychospiritual (15%) modalities. Pain was a higher indicator of CAM use among Asians, gastrointestinal problems and diabetes among Hispanics, and stress/fatigue and cardiovascular problems among white non-Hispanics.Findings indicated a high use of CAM among the elderly and emphasize the likelihood that elderly immigrants use those therapies with which they are familiar. Modalities and conditions varied with the ethnicity of respondents

S-adenosyl methionine (SAMe) versus celecoxib for the treatment of osteoarthritis symptoms: A double-blind cross-over trial. [ISRCTN36233495]

Background: S-Adenosylmethionine (SAMe) is a dietary supplement used in the management of osteoarthritis (OA) symptoms. Studies evaluating SAMe in the management of OA have been limited to Non Steroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs ( NSAIDs) for comparison. The present study compares the effectiveness of SAMe to a cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor ( celecoxib) for pain control, functional improvement and to decrease side effects in people with osteoarthritis of the knee. Methods: A randomized double-blind cross-over study, comparing SAMe ( 1200 mg) with celecoxib ( Celebrex 200 mg) for 16 weeks to reduce pain associated with OA of the knee. Sixty-one adults diagnosed with OA of the knee were enrolled and 56 completed the study. Subjects were tested for pain, functional health, mood status, isometric joint function tests, and side effects. Results: On the first month of Phase 1, celecoxib showed significantly more reduction in pain than SAMe ( p = 0.024). By the second month of Phase 1, there was no significant difference between both groups ( p < 0.01). The duration of treatment and the interaction of duration with type of treatment were statistically significant (ps ≤ 0.029). On most functional health measures both groups showed a notable improvement from baseline, however no significant difference between SAMe and celecoxib was observed. Isometric joint function tests appeared to be steadily improving over the entire study period regardless of treatment. Conclusion: SAMe has a slower onset of action but is as effective as celecoxib in the management of symptoms of knee osteoarthritis. Longer studies are needed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of SAMe and the optimal dose to be used

Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: a systematic review of the literature.

A systematic review.To determine the quality of the research and assess the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures.Conflicting data have been reported over the past 35 years regarding the reliability of spinal palpatory tests.The authors used 13 electronic databases and manually searched the literature from January 1, 1966 to October 1, 2001. Forty-nine (6%) of 797 primary research articles met the inclusion criteria. Two blinded, independent reviewers scored each article. Consensus or a content expert reconciled discrepancies.The quality scores ranged from 25 to 79/100. Subject description, study design, and presentation of results were the weakest areas. The 12 highest quality articles found pain provocation, motion, and landmark location tests to have acceptable reliability (K = 0.40 or greater), but they were not always reproducible by other examiners under similar conditions. In those that used kappa statistics, a higher percentage of the pain provocation studies (64%) demonstrated acceptable reliability, followed by motion studies (58%), landmark (33%), and soft tissue studies (0%). Regional range of motion is more reliable than segmental range of motion, and intraexaminer reliability is better than interexaminer reliability. Overall, examiners' discipline, experience level, consensus on procedure used, training just before the study, or use of symptomatic subjects do not improve reliability.The quality of the research on interreliability and intrareliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures needs to be improved. Pain provocation tests are most reliable. Soft tissue paraspinal palpatory diagnostic tests are not reliable

Reliability of spinal palpation for diagnosis of back and neck pain: a systematic review of the literature.

A systematic review.To determine the quality of the research and assess the interexaminer and intraexaminer reliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures.Conflicting data have been reported over the past 35 years regarding the reliability of spinal palpatory tests.The authors used 13 electronic databases and manually searched the literature from January 1, 1966 to October 1, 2001. Forty-nine (6%) of 797 primary research articles met the inclusion criteria. Two blinded, independent reviewers scored each article. Consensus or a content expert reconciled discrepancies.The quality scores ranged from 25 to 79/100. Subject description, study design, and presentation of results were the weakest areas. The 12 highest quality articles found pain provocation, motion, and landmark location tests to have acceptable reliability (K = 0.40 or greater), but they were not always reproducible by other examiners under similar conditions. In those that used kappa statistics, a higher percentage of the pain provocation studies (64%) demonstrated acceptable reliability, followed by motion studies (58%), landmark (33%), and soft tissue studies (0%). Regional range of motion is more reliable than segmental range of motion, and intraexaminer reliability is better than interexaminer reliability. Overall, examiners' discipline, experience level, consensus on procedure used, training just before the study, or use of symptomatic subjects do not improve reliability.The quality of the research on interreliability and intrareliability of spinal palpatory diagnostic procedures needs to be improved. Pain provocation tests are most reliable. Soft tissue paraspinal palpatory diagnostic tests are not reliable