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

Abstract

Abstract 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.

Keywords

• Traditional and complementary medicine
• Stakeholders
• Systematic review
• Persian medicine
• Uyghur medicine