Why meta-analyses are important for complementary and alternative medicine research

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is defined as a group of interventions that are not generally considered part of conventional medicine. This definition already implies that CAM interventions are often not systematically studied; and the research evidence from single trials on CAM is often limited by small sample sizes, unclear methodology, and inade-quate statistics. As a result, both, significant and insignificant results are often hard to interpret based on single trials. Summarizing the evidence from single CAM trials, qualitative systematic reviews still have to deal with the same problems as individual trials as they can only rely on the original reports. Thus, effects of CAM interventions are often underestimated or overestimated based on single trials or qualitative systematic reviews. While meta-analyses still are limited by the methodological shortcomings of the included studies, a well-conducted meta-analysis can deal with two common problems of CAM trials: inadequate statistics that rely on within-group comparisons and small underpowered sample sizes. Although large and high quality trials are urgently needed for most CAM interventions, funding often is limited. Until higher quality research is available, meta-analyses provide a useful tool to investigate the actual level of evidence of currently published CAM trials. This editorial presents examples of meta-analyses in the field of CAM and discusses how they contribute to the consolidation of evidence.