Background: Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is gaining popularity among patients experiencing pain, alongside traditional treatments. This study aimed to explore the views of pain clinicians and researchers on CAIM interventions. Methods: An anonymous, online survey was distributed to 46 223 authors who had published pain-related research in MEDLINE-indexed journals. The survey included multiple-choice questions and open-ended sections to gather detailed opinions. Results: A total of 1024 participants responded, most identifying as either pain researchers (43.59%) or both researchers and clinicians (39.88%). Many held senior positions (61.55%). Among the CAIM modalities, mind-body therapies such as meditation, yoga, and biofeedback were viewed as the most promising for pain prevention, treatment, and management, with 68.47% of participants endorsing these approaches. While a majority (43.89%) believed that most CAIM therapies are safe, only 25.55% expressed confidence in their effectiveness. There was broad agreement on the need for more research into CAIM therapies, with 45.88% agreeing and 42.53% strongly agreeing that further investigation is valuable. Additionally, many respondents supported the inclusion of CAIM training in clinician education, either through formal programs (46.40%) or supplementary courses (52.71%). Mind-body therapies received the most positive feedback, while biofield therapies were met with the most skepticism. Conclusion: These findings highlight the interest in CAIM among pain specialists and emphasize the need for more research and education tailored to this area. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols ### Funding Statement This study did not receive any funding. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: We sought and were granted ethics approval by the University Hospital Tubingen Research Ethics Board to conduct this study (REB Number: 389/2023BO2). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All study materials and data are included in this manuscript or posted on Open Science Framework.

INTRODUCTION:Research on complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) continues to grow. Bibliometric analyses (BAs) are valuable to assess research trends, identify gaps, and understand the evolution of a body of literature, yet there are no systematic or scoping reviews on how these BAs are conducted. This scoping review aimed to systematically review and summarize BAs on CAIM literature to inform and guide future bibliometric studies in this field and beyond. METHODS:A scoping review was conducted in accordance with Joanna Briggs Institute guidelines. A systematic search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, CINAHL, Scopus, and Web of Science from database inception to the date of the search on January 5, 2023. Eligible articles were BAs of the CAIM literature. Screening and data extraction were completed independently and in duplicate by at least two reviewers, with findings summarized descriptively. RESULTS:The review included 286 articles published between 1995 and 2023, with approximately 75% published in the last 5 years. Studies were conducted in 36 countries, with China (50%) leading in contributions. All articles used performance analysis techniques, whereas 80% also used science-mapping techniques. The most commonly used performance analysis metrics were "total publications" (98%) and "total citations" (67%). Co-word (63%) and co-authorship (55%) analysis were the most common science mapping techniques. VOSviewer and CiteSpace were the predominant visualization softwares employed. CONCLUSIONS:This review demonstrates large methodological diversity in the conduct of CAIM bibliometrics. As a result of this variability, future research should focus on developing uniform methodologies and incorporating diverse metrics and alternative data sources to enhance the reliability and reproducibility of BAs in the CAIM field.

Despite the growth in the number of bibliometric analyses published in the peer-reviewed literature, few articles provide guidance on methods and reporting to ensure reliability, robustness, and reproducibility. Consequently, the quality of reporting in existing bibliometric studies varies greatly. In response, we are developing a preliminary Guidance List for the repOrting of Bibliometric AnaLyses (GLOBAL), a reporting guideline for bibliometric analyses. This paper outlines a scoping review that aims to identify and categorize bibliometric recommendations from the literature to develop an initial list of candidate items for GLOBAL. Five bibliographic databases, three preprint servers, and gray literature were systematically searched. Twenty-three out of 48,750 records fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Six documents contained bibliometric reporting recommendations based on a complete or partial literature review; all other sources (n = 17) contained opinion-based recommendations. A 32-item recommendation list that will inform the development of GLOBAL was created. A paucity of evidence-based studies on bibliometric reporting exists in the literature, supporting the need to create a reporting guideline for bibliometric analyses. The next step in GLOBAL project will focus on conducting a two-round Delphi study to achieve consensus on which of the 32 items should be included in GLOBAL.

Background: The use of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) is known to be popular worldwide; there have been over 200,000 research articles published on this topic as of 2024. For decades, traditional citation-based metrics have been the assumed norm when assessing the impact of research, but in the digital age, alternative metrics (altmetrics) have also become a valuable proxy. By analyzing trends associated with the altmetrics of scholarly outputs relating to TCIM, patterns of social engagement were identified to obtain a better understanding of the factors that drive social impact in this field online. Methods: This study was conducted using Altmetric.com, whereby this database was searched by the subject area "Traditional, Complementary and Integrative Medicine". The subsequent data obtained was further analyzed to discern social trends within TCIM scholarly outputs at the article level. Results: 62,278 research outputs, from 1925 to 2024, with +497,000 online mentions were analyzed. Outputs from the Journal of Natural Products were mentioned the most frequently online (n = 5314, 10.56 %). The highest average Altmetric attention scores were associated with news outputs (M = 203.67), and outputs published under a bronze OA type (M = 17.54). The most mentions were contributed by X (n = 350,630, 70.41 %), Facebook (n = 57,540, 11.55 %), and news outlets (n = 39,941, 8.02 %). Conclusions: Using the features found in this study to be linked with higher online attention, and sharing research through well-used online platforms, may help make TCIM research more visible to the public and more relevant to policy discussions.

Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) research encompasses a diverse range of health practices rooted in various cultural, philosophical, and historical frameworks. As global interest in conducting research in this field grows, the need for rigorous research to support the integration of evidence-based TCIM therapies into mainstream healthcare has become essential. Data sharing is critical to advancing TCIM research by enhancing reproducibility, fostering interdisciplinary collaboration, promoting ethical practices, and addressing global health challenges. Despite its benefits, numerous challenges are associated with data sharing in TCIM, including a lack of standardized practices, cultural sensitivity, intellectual property concerns, and technical barriers in resource-limited settings. This editorial explores the unique nature of TCIM research, emphasizing the importance of data sharing while acknowledging the complexities it entails. Implementing the CARE Principles for Indigenous Data Governance, which prioritize collective benefit, authority to control, responsibility, and ethics, offers a framework for ensuring that data sharing respects indigenous knowledge and cultural sensitivities. Strategies for overcoming barriers to data sharing include developing standardized protocols, investing in research infrastructure, and fostering a culture of openness and collaboration within the TCIM community and beyond. By advancing data sharing practices, TCIM research can contribute to evidence-based healthcare solutions and address global health disparities, ultimately improving health outcomes worldwide.

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots are novel computer programs that can generate text or content in a natural language format. Academic publishers are adapting to the transformative role of AI chatbots in producing or facilitating scientific research. This study aimed to examine the policies established by scientific, technical, and medical academic publishers for defining and regulating the authors’ responsible use of AI chatbots. Methods This study performed a cross-sectional audit on the publicly available policies of 162 academic publishers, indexed as members of the International Association of the Scientific, Technical, and Medical Publishers (STM). Data extraction of publicly available policies on the webpages of all STM academic publishers was performed independently, in duplicate, with content analysis reviewed by a third contributor (September 2023—December 2023). Data was categorized into policy elements, such as ‘proofreading’ and ‘image generation’. Counts and percentages of ‘yes’ (i.e., permitted), ‘no’, and ‘no available information’ (NAI) were established for each policy element. Results A total of 56/162 (34.6%) STM academic publishers had a publicly available policy guiding the authors’ use of AI chatbots. No policy allowed authorship for AI chatbots (or other AI tool). Most (49/56 or 87.5%) required specific disclosure of AI chatbot use. Four policies/publishers placed a complete ban on the use of AI chatbots by authors. Conclusions Only a third of STM academic publishers had publicly available policies as of December 2023. A re-examination of all STM members in 12–18 months may uncover evolving approaches toward AI chatbot use with more academic publishers having a policy.

The field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) has garnered increasing attention due to its holistic approach to health and well-being. While the quantity of published research about TCIM has increased exponentially, critics have argued that the field faces challenges related to methodological rigour, reproducibility, and overall quality. This article proposes meta-research as one approach to evaluating and improving the quality of TCIM research. Meta-research, also known as research about research, can be defined as “the study of research itself: its methods, reporting, reproducibility, evaluation, and incentives”. By systematically evaluating methodological rigour, identifying biases, and promoting transparency, meta-research can enhance the reliability and credibility of TCIM research. Specific topics of interest that are discussed in this article include the following: 1) study design and research methodology, 2) reporting of research, 3) research ethics, integrity, and misconduct, 4) replicability and reproducibility, 5) peer review and journal editorial practices, 6) research funding: grants and awards, and 7) hiring, promotion, and tenure. For each topic, we provide case examples to illustrate meta-research applications in TCIM. We argue that meta-research initiatives can contribute to maintaining public trust, safeguarding research integrity, and advancing evidence based TCIM practice, while challenges include navigating methodological complexities, biases, and disparities in funding and academic recognition. Future directions involve tailored research methodologies, interdisciplinary collaboration, policy implications, and capacity building in meta-research.

Transparency within biomedical research is essential for research integrity, credibility, and reproducibility. To increase adherence to optimal scientific practices and enhance transparency, we propose the creation of a journal transparency tool (JTT) that will allow users to obtain information about a given scholarly journal’s operations and transparency policies. This study is part of a program of research to obtain user preferences to inform the proposed JTT. Here, we report on our consultation with clinicians and researchers. This mixed-methods study was conducted in two parts. The first part involved a cross-sectional survey conducted on a random sample of authors from biomedical journals. The survey asked clinicians and researchers about the inclusion of a series of potential scholarly metrics and user features in the proposed JTT. Quantitative survey items were summarized with descriptive statistics. Thematic content analysis was employed to analyze text-based responses. Subsequent focus groups used survey responses to further explore the inclusion of items in the JTT. Items with less than 70% agreement were used to structure discussion points during these sessions. Participants voted on the use of user features and metrics to be considered within the journal tool after each discussion. Thematic content analysis was conducted on interview transcripts to identify the core themes discussed. A total of 632 participants (5.5% response rate) took part in the survey. A collective total of 74.7% of respondents found it either ‘occasionally, ‘often’, or ‘almost always’ difficult to determine if health information online is based on reliable research evidence. Twenty-two participants took part in the focus groups. Three user features and five journal tool metrics were major discussion points during these sessions. Thematic analysis of interview transcripts resulted in six themes. The use of registration was the only item to not meet the 70% threshold after both the survey and focus groups. Participants demonstrated low scholarly communication literacy when discussing tool metric suggestions. Our findings suggest that the JTT would be valuable for both researchers and clinicians. The outcomes of this research will contribute to developing and refining the tool in accordance with researchers and clinicians.

Chatbots are artificial intelligence (AI) programs designed to simulate conversations with humans that present opportunities and challenges in scientific research. Despite growing clarity from publishing organisations on the use of AI chatbots, researchers' perceptions remain less understood. In this international cross-sectional survey, we aimed to assess researchers' attitudes, familiarity, perceived benefits, and limitations related to AI chatbots. Our online survey was open from July 9 to Aug 11, 2023, with 61 560 corresponding authors identified from 122 323 articles indexed in PubMed. 2452 (4·0%) provided responses and 2165 (94·5%) of 2292 who met eligibility criteria completed the survey. 1161 (54·0%) of 2149 respondents were male and 959 (44·6%) were female. 1294 (60·5%) of 2138 respondents were familiar with AI chatbots, and 945 (44·5%) of 2125 had previously used AI chatbots in research. Only 244 (11·4%) of 2137 reported institutional training on AI tools, and 211 (9·9%) of 2131 noted institutional policies on AI chatbot use. Despite mixed opinions on the benefits, 1428 (69·7%) of 2048 expressed interest in further training. Although many valued AI chatbots for reducing administrative workload (1299 [66·9%] of 1941), there was insufficient understanding of the decision making process (1484 [77·2%] of 1923). Overall, this study highlights substantial interest in AI chatbots among researchers, but also points to the need for more formal training and clarity on their use.

Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed. Although preprints are becoming more prevalent, uptake is not optimal. Understanding researchers’ opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable to optimize their use. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers’ attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to use preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods Corresponding authors of articles published in biomedical research journals were identified from a random sample of journals from the MEDLINE database. Their names and email addresses were extracted to invite them to our anonymous, cross-sectional survey, which asked participants questions about their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting. Results The survey was completed by 730 respondents providing a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages worldwide. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints but most had not previously posted one. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the greatest impact on decisions to post a preprint, whereas employers/research institutes had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increasing authors’ visibility was the highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. Conclusions Although many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to improve researchers’ attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.

The convergence of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) with artificial intelligence (AI) is a promising frontier in healthcare. TCIM is a patient-centric approach that combines conventional medicine with complementary therapies, emphasizing holistic well-being. AI can revolutionize healthcare through data-driven decision-making and personalized treatment plans. This article explores how AI technologies can complement and enhance TCIM, aligning with the shared objectives of researchers from both fields in improving patient outcomes, enhancing care quality, and promoting holistic wellness. This integration of TCIM and AI introduces exciting opportunities but also noteworthy challenges. AI may augment TCIM by assisting in early disease detection, providing personalized treatment plans, predicting health trends, and enhancing patient engagement. Challenges at the intersection of AI and TCIM include data privacy and security, regulatory complexities, maintaining the human touch in patient-provider relationships, and mitigating bias in AI algorithms. Patients' trust, informed consent, and legal accountability are all essential considerations. Future directions in AI-enhanced TCIM include advanced personalized medicine, understanding the efficacy of herbal remedies, and studying patient-provider interactions. Research on bias mitigation, patient acceptance, and trust in AI-driven TCIM healthcare is crucial. In this article, we outlined that the merging of TCIM and AI holds great promise in enhancing healthcare delivery, personalizing treatment plans, preventive care, and patient engagement. Addressing challenges and fostering collaboration between AI experts, TCIM practitioners, and policymakers, however, is vital to harnessing the full potential of this integration.

As research within Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa, and Homeopathy (AYUSH) continues to expand, there is an increasing need for standardized reporting guidelines to ensure the clarity, replicability, and utility of research findings. This editorial discusses the unique challenges that AYUSH research faces in aligning with existing health research standards and highlights the benefits of tailored reporting guidelines. Reporting guidelines can improve the transparency and consistency of AYUSH studies, facilitating their inclusion in systematic reviews and supporting informed clinical and policy decision-making. We outline key steps in developing AYUSH-specific guidelines, including stakeholder engagement, an adaptation of existing frameworks, and pilot testing, to foster methodological rigor and support the integration of AYUSH research into broader scientific discourse. Establishing structured reporting guidelines will enhance the credibility of evidence-based AYUSH research and ensure its contributions are accessible and meaningful within the global healthcare landscape.

This educational article explores the convergence of open science practices and traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM), shedding light on the potential benefits and challenges of open science for the development, dissemination, and implementation of evidence-based TCIM. We emphasize the transformative shift in medical science towards open and collaborative practices, highlighting the limited application of open science in TCIM research despite its growing acceptance among patients. We define open science practices and discuss those that are applicable to TCIM, including: study registration; reporting guidelines; data, code and material sharing; preprinting; publishing open access; and reproducibility/replication studies. We explore the benefits of open science in TCIM, spanning improved research quality, increased public trust, accelerated innovation, and enhanced evidence-based decision-making. We also acknowledge challenges such as data privacy concerns, limited resources, and resistance to cultural change. We propose strategies to overcome these challenges, including ethical guidelines, education programs, funding advocacy, interdisciplinary dialogue, and patient engagement. Looking to the future, we envision the maturation of open science in TCIM, the development of TCIM-specific guidelines for open science practices, advancements in data sharing platforms, the integration of open data and artificial intelligence in TCIM research, and changes in the context of policy and regulation. We foresee a future where open science in TCIM leads to a better evidence base, informed decision-making, interdisciplinary collaboration, and transformative impacts on healthcare and research methodologies, highlighting the promising synergy between open science and TCIM for holistic, evidence-based healthcare solutions.

Background While many patients with neurological disorders and conditions use complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), little is known about the use and perceptions of CAIM among neurology researchers and clinicians. With the increasing popularity of CAIM, our objective was to assess practices, perceptions, and attitudes towards CAIM among neurology researchers and clinicians. Methods We conducted an anonymous online survey of authors who had published articles in neurology journals indexed in MEDLINE. We emailed potential participants our cross-sectional electronic survey after extracting their email addresses from one of their publications in our sample of journals. Basic descriptive statistics were drawn from quantitative data, and thematic content analysis was used to analyse qualitative data from any open-ended questions. Results The survey was completed by 783 neurology researchers and/or clinicians (1.5% response rate, 83.9% completion rate). Overall, respondents perceived CAIM to be promising in preventing, treating, and/or managing neurological diseases. Mind-body therapies received the most positive responses, indicated by over half of respondents cumulatively agreeing that they are promising (n=368, 59.0%) and safe (n=280, 50.3%). Whole medical systems and biofield therapy were less favourable. Most neurology clinicians reported a lack of formal (n=211, 70.3%) and supplementary training (n=158, 52.5%) on CAIM. Nearly half of clinicians did not feel comfortable counselling patients about CAIM (n = 121, 44.5%), and over half did not feel comfortable recommending it (n=161, 59.3%). A lack of scientific evidence for CAIM’s safety and efficacy was reported as the greatest challenge to CAIM (n=515, 92.5%). The majority of respondents believed there is value to conducting research on this topic (n=461, 82.0%) and supported increasing allocation of research funding towards CAIM (n=241, 58.9%). Conclusions Although many participants found CAIM to be promising to the field of neurology, the vast majority did not feel open to integrating CAIM into mainstream medical practices on account of a perceived lack of scientific evidence for its safety and efficacy. Future studies can use our findings to improve educational resources on CAIM within neurology, as well as examine what effects a tailored CAIM education has on the perceptions of neurology researchers and clinicians. ### Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. ### Clinical Protocols ### Funding Statement This study was unfunded. ### Author Declarations I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained. Yes The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below: We sought and were granted ethics approval by the University Hospital Tubingen Research Ethics Board prior to beginning this project (REB Number: 325/2007 BO1). I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals. Yes I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance). Yes I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable. Yes All data and materials associated with this study have been posted on the Open Science Framework. * CAIM : complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine CHERRIES : Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys MEDLINE : Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online NLM : National Library of Medicine NCCIH : National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health OSF : Open Science Framework PMID : PubMed identifier

Background: The use of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is commonly used among pediatric patients for various conditions. Pediatrics clinicians and researchers' perceptions towards the incorporation of CAIM therapies have varied. This study aims to investigate the perceptions of both pediatrics researchers and clinicians regarding CAIM. Methods: We conducted a large-scale, international cross-sectional online survey with published pediatrics authors who have published their work in pediatrics medical journals that are indexed in MEDLINE. In total, 34 494 researchers and clinicians were invited to complete the survey. The survey recorded respondents' perceptions on various CAIM therapies. Descriptive statistics were generated from the quantitative survey results. A thematic analysis was conducted for responses to open ended questions. Results: In total, 731 pediatrics clinicians and/or researchers responded to the survey, with about half of the respondents being faculty members/principal investigators (56.10%) and/or clinicians (43.45%) and from the Americas (46.56%) or Europe (30.53%). Over half of the respondents viewed mind-body therapies favourably (62.01%) and the fewest respondents held favourable perceptions of biofield therapies (6.98%). Respondents agreed or strongly agreed that there is value in conducting further research on CAIM therapies (85.52%) and disagreed or strongly disagreed that they felt comfortable recommending most CAIM therapies to patients (64.83%). A thematic analysis of our findings demonstrates that many pediatrics clinicians and/or researchers support further research on CAIM. Conclusion: The findings from this study demonstrate that pediatrics clinicians and researchers have varying perceptions towards CAIM therapies. Respondents had the most positive perceptions of mind-body therapies and felt they did not have adequate training on CAIM. Further research is needed to establish more evidence-based educational resources on CAIM.

Background Open science practices are implemented across many scientific fields to improve transparency and reproducibility in research. Complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) is a growing field that may benefit from adoption of open science practices. The efficacy and safety of CAIM practices, a popular concern with the field, can be validated or refuted through transparent and reliable research. Investigating open science practices across CAIM journals by using the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guidelines can potentially promote open science practices across CAIM journals. The purpose of this study is to conduct an audit that compares and ranks open science practices adopted by CAIM journals against TOP guidelines laid out by the Center for Open Science (COS). Methods CAIM-specific journals with titles containing the words “complementary”, “alternative” and/or “integrative” were included in this audit. Each of the eight TOP criteria were used to extract open science practices from each of the CAIM journals. Data was summarized by the TOP guideline and ranked using the TOP Factor to identify commonalities and differences in practices across the included journals. Results A total of 19 CAIM journals were included in this audit. Across all journals, the mean TOP Factor was 2.95 with a median score of 2. The findings of this study reveal high variability among the open science practices required by journals in this field. Four journals (21%) had a final TOP score of 0, while the total scores of the remaining 15 (79%) ranged from 1 to 8. Conclusion While several studies have audited open science practices across discipline-specific journals, none have focused on CAIM journals. The results of this study indicate that CAIM journals provide minimal guidelines to encourage or require authors to adhere to open science practices and there is an opportunity to improve the use of open science practices in the field.

Open science practices aim to increase transparency in research and increase research availability through open data, open access platforms, and public access. Due to the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM) research, our study aims to explore current open science practices and perceived barriers among CAIM researchers in their own respective research articles. We conducted an international cross-sectional online survey that was sent to authors that published articles in MEDLINE-indexed journals categorized under the broad subject of “Complementary Therapies” or articles indexed under the MeSH term “Complementary Therapies.” Articles were extracted to obtain the names and emails of all corresponding authors. Eight thousand seven hundred eighty-six researchers were emailed our survey, which included questions regarding participants’ familiarity with open science practices, their open science practices, and perceived barriers to open science in CAIM with respect to participants’ most recently published article. Basic descriptive statistics was generated based on the quantitative data. The survey was completed by 292 participants (3.32% response rate). Results indicate that the majority of participants were “very familiar” (n = 83, 31.68%) or “moderately familiar” (n = 83, 31.68%) with the concept of open science practices while creating their study. Open access publishing was the most familiar to participants, with 51.96% (n = 136) of survey respondents publishing with open access. Despite participants being familiar with other open science practices, the actual implementation of these practices was low. Common barriers participants experienced in implementing open science practices include not knowing where to share the study materials, where to share the data, or not knowing how to make a preprint. Although participants responded that they were familiar with the concept of open science practices, the actual implementation and uses of these practices were low. Barriers included a lack of overall knowledge about open science, and an overall lack of funding or institutional support. Future efforts should aim to explore how to implement methods to improve open science training for CAIM researchers.

OBJECTIVE:Fibromyalgia (FM) is a chronic and disabling condition that presents treatment challenges for both patients and healthcare providers. The objective of this review was to systematically assess the effectiveness and safety of mind-body therapies for FM. METHODS:We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, AMED, and CINAHL databases from their inception to December 2023. Eligible articles included adults diagnosed with FM participating in a mind-body therapy intervention and were published from the beginning of 2012 onwards. We assessed the quality of the studies using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Checklists. RESULTS:Twenty-seven studies (1969 participants) were included, comprising 22 randomized controlled trials and 5 quasi-experimental studies. Mind-body therapies included guided imagery (n = 5), mindfulness-based stress reduction (n = 5), qi gong (n = 5), tai chi (n = 5), biofeedback (n = 3), yoga (n = 2), mindfulness awareness training (n = 1), and progressive muscle relaxation (n = 1). With the exception of mindfulness-based stress reduction, all therapies had at least 1 study showing significant improvements in pain at the end of treatment. Three or more studies on qi gong and tai chi demonstrated significant improvements in fatigue and multidimensional function, with tai chi showing the most evidence for improvement in anxiety and depression. Approximately one-third of the studies reported on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS:This systematic review found that mind-body therapies are potentially beneficial for adults with FM. Further research is necessary to determine if the positive effects observed post-intervention are sustained. STUDY REGISTRATION:Open Science Framework (https://osf.io) (September 12, 2023; https://doi.org/10.17605/osf.io/6w7ac).

Introduction and objective Open science (OS) aims to make the dissemination of knowledge and the research process transparent and accessible to everyone. With the increasing popularity of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine (CAIM), our goal was to explore what are CAIM researchers’ practices and perceived barriers related to OS. Methods We conducted an anonymous online survey of researchers who published in journals listed in Scopus containing the words “complementary”, “alternative”, or “integrative” medicine in their names. We emailed 6040 researchers our purpose-built electronic survey after extracting their email address from one of their publications in our sample of journals. We questioned their familiarity with different OS concepts, along with their experiences and challenges engaging in these practices over the last 12 months. Results The survey was completed by 392 researchers (6.5% response rate, 97.1% completion rate). Most respondents were CAIM researchers familiar with the overall concept of OS, indicated by those actively publishing open access (OA) (n = 244, 76.0%), registering a study protocol (n = 148, 48.0%), and using reporting guidelines (n = 181, 59.0%) in the past 12 months. Preprinting, sharing raw data, and sharing study materials were less popular. A lack of funding was reported as the greatest barrier to publishing OA by most respondents (n = 252, 79.0%), and that additional funding is the most significant incentive in applying more OS practices to their research (n = 229,72.2%). With respect to preprinting barriers, 36.3% (n = 110) participants believed there are potential harms in sharing non-peer-reviewed work and 37.0% (n = 112) feared preprinting would reduce the likelihood of their manuscript being accepted by a journal. Respondents were also concerned about intellectual property control regarding sharing data (n = 94, 31.7%) and research study materials (n = 80, 28.7%). Conclusions Although many participants were familiar with and practiced aspects of OS, many reported facing barriers relating to lack of funding to enable OS and perceived risks of revealing research ideas and data prior to publication. Future research should monitor the adoption and implementation of OS interventions in CAIM.