Researching complementary and alternative treatments--the gatekeepers are not at home


Fonnebo, Vinjar, Grimsgaard, Sameline, Walach, Harald, Ritenbaugh, Cheryl, Norheim, Arne Johan, MacPherson, Hugh, Lewith, George, Launso, Laila, Koithan, Mary, Falkenberg, Torkel, Boon, Heather and Aickin, Mikel (2007) Researching complementary and alternative treatments--the gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 7, (7), 6pp. (doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-7).

Download

Full text not available from this repository.

Original Publication URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-7-7

Description/Abstract

Background
To explore the strengths and weaknesses of conventional biomedical research strategies and methods as applied to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to suggest a new research framework for assessing these treatment modalities.

Discussion
There appears to be a gap between published studies showing little or no efficacy of CAM, and reports of substantial clinical benefit from patients and CAM practitioners. This "gap" might be partially due to the current focus on placebo-controlled randomized trials, which are appropriately designed to answer questions about the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical agents. In an attempt to fit this assessment strategy, complex CAM treatment approaches have been dissected into standardized and often simplified treatment methods, and outcomes have been limited.
Unlike conventional medicine, CAM has no regulatory or financial gatekeeper controlling their therapeutic "agents" before they are marketed. Treatments may thus be in widespread use before researchers know of their existence. In addition, the treatments are often provided as an integrated 'whole system' of care, without careful consideration of the safety issue.

We propose a five-phase strategy for assessing CAM built on the acknowledgement of the inherent, unique aspects of CAM treatments and their regulatory status in most Western countries. These phases comprise:

1. Context, paradigms, philosophical understanding and utilization

2. Safety status

3. Comparative effectiveness.

4. Component efficacy

5. Biological mechanisms.

Summary
Using the proposed strategy will generate evidence relevant to clinical practice, while acknowledging the absence of regulatory and financial gatekeepers for CAM. It will also emphasize the important but subtle differences between CAM and conventional medical practice.

Item Type: Article
ISSNs: 1471-2288 (print)
Related URLs:
Keywords: agents, biomedical research,adverse effects, patients, treatment, safety, complementary therapies, humans, research, norway, utilization, legislation & jurisprudence, report, methods
Subjects: R Medicine > RZ Other systems of medicine
R Medicine
R Medicine > RM Therapeutics. Pharmacology
Divisions: University Structure - Pre August 2011 > School of Medicine > Community Clinical Sciences
University Structure - Pre August 2011 > School of Medicine
ePrint ID: 61784
Date Deposited: 10 Sep 2008
Last Modified: 27 Mar 2014 18:43
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/61784

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item