Skip to main content

08.05.2020 | Review Article

Rheumatoid arthritis and osteoarthritis clinical practice guidelines provide few complementary and alternative medicine therapy recommendations: a systematic review

Clinical Rheumatology
Jeremy Y. Ng, Ashlee M. Azizudin
Wichtige Hinweise

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10067-020-05054-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.


Sixty percent of patients with arthritis have used complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies at least once. The two most common types of arthritis include rheumatoid arthritis (RA) and osteoarthritis (OA). The quality and quantity of CAM recommendations for RA and OA is currently unknown. The purpose of this research was to identify the quantity and assess the quality of CAM recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) for the treatment and/or management of RA and OA. A systematic review was conducted to identify CPGs; MEDLINE, EMBASE and CINAHL were searched from 2008 to 2018. The Guidelines International Network and the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health websites were also searched. Three independent reviewers evaluated the quality of reporting for each guideline that provided CAM recommendations, and the specific section providing CAM recommendations, using the AGREE II instrument. From 525 unique search results, seven guidelines (3 OA, 4 RA) mentioned CAM and 5 guidelines made CAM recommendations. Scaled domain percentages from highest to lowest were (overall, CAM) as follows: clarity of presentation (92.2% vs. 94.1%), scope and purpose (90.1% vs. 87.4%), rigour of development (72.6% vs. 64.2%), stakeholder involvement (64.8% vs. 49.6%), editorial independence (61.1% vs. 60.6%), and applicability (51.4% vs. 33.3%). None of the 5 guidelines was recommended by both appraisers for either the overall guideline or CAM section. For the overall guideline, appraisers agreed in their overall recommendation for 3 of 5 guidelines, including 3 Yes with modifications; of the remaining 2 guidelines, 1 was rated by the three appraisers as 1 No and 2 Yes with modifications, while 1 guideline was rated at 2 Yes and 1 Yes with modifications. For the CAM section, appraisers agreed in their overall recommendation for all 5 guidelines including 1 No, and 4 Yes with modifications. Roughly half of arthritis CPGs found included in this review provided CAM recommendations. The quality of CAM recommendations are of lower quality than overall recommendations across the scope and purpose, stakeholder involvement, rigour of development, applicability, and editorial independence domains. Quality varied within and across guidelines.

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu diesem Inhalt zu erhalten

e.Med Interdisziplinär

Mit e.Med Interdisziplinär erhalten Sie Zugang zu allen CME-Fortbildungen und Fachzeitschriften auf

Weitere Produktempfehlungen anzeigen
Nur für berechtigte Nutzer zugänglich
Über diesen Artikel
  1. Sie können e.Med Innere Medizin 14 Tage kostenlos testen (keine Print-Zeitschrift enthalten). Der Test läuft automatisch und formlos aus. Es kann nur einmal getestet werden.

Neu im Fachgebiet Innere Medizin

Mail Icon II Newsletter

Bestellen Sie unseren kostenlosen Newsletter Update Innere Medizin und bleiben Sie gut informiert – ganz bequem per eMail.

© Springer Medizin