However, there are a few areas for improvement. First, your topic is still quite broad. You discuss the ‘effectiveness

However, there are a few areas for improvement. First, your topic is still quite broad. You discuss the "effectiveness" of OMC, but in fact from several perspectives: largely about professionals’ and patients’ experiences of (or attitudes regarding) its effectiveness in different contexts. It is fine to include such a broader discussion/focus in your review, but ultimately you should focus on a narrower/more specific aspect of this topic – eg measuring the effectiveness of OMC in some specific respect or investigating barriers/improvements to its effectiveness. Similarly, your research gap should be more specific, that is is provide clear information about a specific gap in the research on this topic, and WHY this gap is significant or why it needs to be addressed, based on your critical evaluation. On that note, too, you do not provide much critical discussion of synthesis in your main sections, but instead tend to simply present/summarise or report the main findings of these studies. More critical discussion/evaluation, leading to the identification of specific gaps in the existing research, is needed.