Impacts of intracranial pressure monitoring on mortality and length of stay in severe traumatic brain injury: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

In 2001, a significant paper was published that provided a detailed analysis of the publication practices of major journals specialising in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) []. This analysis, spanning 1995 to 2000 and focusing on four leading peer-reviewed research-oriented journals in CAM, identified several problematic features in these publications. These included a predominance of positive findings, a reliance on surveys over clinical trials, and concerns regarding methodological rigor. These findings raised critical questions about the scientific integrity of CAM journals and their role in shaping public and professional perceptions of CAM. The 2001 paper's authors suggested that these problems may be due to CAM research being a young and rapidly growing field grappling with issues of bias and scientific maturity, and they expressed hope that improvements in research and publication standards would follow through time. Bibliometric analyses have identified over 600 distinct forms of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), with thousands of new CAM-related articles published annually, primarily in specialised journals. Notably, over 90% of these publications originate from a small number of journals, raising concerns about concentrated dissemination [–]. CAM research often suffers from significant methodological weaknesses, with many studies reporting positive outcomes despite the low prior probability of effectiveness for most CAM modalities. Critical analyses, including systematic reviews of various modalities, have highlighted major issues such as flawed data interpretation and a lack of compelling evidence for efficacy. Common methodological deficiencies include inadequate control groups, underpowered sample sizes, undisclosed multiple testing, inappropriate statistical methods, and unsupported conclusions [–].