Passage: The Cochrane Library had 145 CAM-related Cochrane systematic reviews and 340 non-Cochrane systematic reviews. An analysis of the conclusions of only the 145 Cochrane reviews was done by two readers. In 83% of the cases, the readers agreed. In the 17% in which they disagreed, a third reader agreed with one of the initial readers to set a rating. These studies found that, for CAM, 38.4% concluded positive effect or possibly positive (12.4%), 4.8% concluded no effect, 0.7% concluded harmful effect, and 56.6% concluded insufficient evidence. An assessment of conventional treatments found that 41.3% concluded positive or possibly positive effect, 20% concluded no effect, 8.1% concluded net harmful effects, and 21.3% concluded insufficient evidence. However, the CAM review used the more developed 2004 Cochrane database, while the conventional review used the initial 1998 Cochrane database.
How many percent of people did not conclude no effect, when assessing conventional treatments? How many percent of people did not conclude positive effect, when assessing conventional treatments? How many percent of readers did not agree? How many percent of readers did not conclude harmful effect? How many percent of readers did not conclude insufficient evidence? How many percent of readers did not conclude no effect? How many percent of readers did not conclude positive effect? How many percent of readers did not conclude possibly positive effect? How many percent of readers did not disagree? How many percent of studies for CAM did not show a positive effect? How many percentage points represents the chance of neither positive or negative effect from conventional treatments? What databases were used for the reviews? Which review used the 1998 Cochrane database, the CAM review or the conventional review?