What traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine recommendations exist across osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines? A systematic review and quality assessment

Jeremy Y Ng; Arwa Hilal; Ishana Maini

Integrative Medicine Research (Jun 2022)

What traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine recommendations exist across osteoporosis clinical practice guidelines? A systematic review and quality assessment

Jeremy Y Ng,
Arwa Hilal,
Ishana Maini

Affiliations

Jeremy Y Ng: Corresponding author at: Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Room 2112, 1280 Main Street West, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.; Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Arwa Hilal: Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
Ishana Maini: Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, Centre for Learning and Discovery, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada

Journal volume & issue: Vol. 11, no. 2
p. 100803

Abstract

Read online

Background: Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine (TCIM) is sought by more than 50% of patients with osteoporosis. Despite this, many healthcare providers lack the knowledge to adequately counsel patients on safe and effective TCIM use. The purpose of this study was to determine the quantity and quality of TCIM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of osteoporosis. Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL databases, in addition to the Guidelines International Network, and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health website were searched from 2009–2020. CPGs making TCIM recommendations for the treatment/management of osteoporosis were assessed with the AGREE II instrument. Results: Of 536 unique search results, 27 osteoporosis CPGs made mention of TCIM therapies. From highest to lowest, scaled domain percentages of all eligible CPGs averaged to 92.59% for scope and purpose, 88.79% for clarity in presentation, 55.04% for stakeholder involvement, 47.84% for editorial independence, 46.53% for rigor of development, and 36.96% for applicability. Of the 27 CPGs assessed, 4 CPGs were recommended as is by both appraisers, while 23 CPGs were recommended with modifications. Conclusions: Recommendations pertaining to calcium and vitamin D supplementation and exercise were favorably recommended across nearly all CPGs. In the case of other TCIM interventions, recommendations varied greatly, which may present challenges for CPGs target users due to a lack of consistency. Given the varying quality of osteoporosis CPGs found, those requiring improvement may benefit from their guideline development panel utilizing the AGREE II instrument to inform future updates.

Published in Integrative Medicine Research

ISSN: 2213-4220 (Print)
Publisher: Elsevier
Country of publisher: Netherlands
LCC subjects: Medicine: Other systems of medicine: Miscellaneous systems and treatments
Website: http://www.journals.elsevier.com/integrative-medicine-research/

About the journal

Abstract

Keywords