Countering misleading information.
Orthodox medicine generally demands evidence in the form of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) before accepting the value of a particular therapy/intervention from the CAM field. Yet many RCTs are badly executed as they are carried out by doctors or scientists rather than holistic practitioners, and peer reviewers for conventional medical journals may not have sufficient knowledge to be able to assess a CAM paper properly. This article discusses inadequacies found in RCTs and other papers related to CAM, and pinpoints how research should be critically evaluated and reviewed. Examples are taken from the fields of aromatherapy, herbalism, acupuncture/TCM and homeopathy. The aim of this paper is to highlight common misunderstandings and misguided assumptions that may arise when undertaking research in the field of complementary medicine that may result in erroneous conclusions being drawn from data and which may have far reaching implications for clinical practice. The STRICTA recommendations for acupuncture are discussed.
Veal
Lowana
L
Urarstekkur 5, 109, Reykjavík, Iceland. lowanaveal@hotmail.com
D015670:Acupuncture Therapy / Q000379:methods; D019341:Aromatherapy / Q000379:methods; D001291:Attitude of Health Personnel; D000529:Complementary Therapies / Q000379:methods* / Q000592:standards; D034462:Dissent and Disputes; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D007722:Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice; D006705:Homeopathy / Q000379:methods; D006801:Humans; D008516:Medicine, Chinese Traditional / Q000379:methods; D008517:Phytotherapy / Q000379:methods; D012107:Research Design / Q000592:standards