Positive Health Online

Abstract

VEAL, Urarstekkur 5, 109, Reykjavik, Iceland, lowanaveal@hotmail.com, has reviewed (11 references) the problem of misleading information in alternative and complementary medicine research. Abstract: Orthodox medical practitioners usually demand evidence in the form of randomized controlled trials before accepting the value of complementary or alternative therapies. Yet many such trials are carried out by medical doctors or scientists and therefore often poorly executed. In addition, peer reviewers for conventional medical journals may not have the knowledge required to assess a paper on complementary or alternative medicine properly. This article discusses inadequacies typically found in controlled trials and other research papers related to complementary or alternative therapies, and pinpoints how research should be critically evaluated and reviewed. Examples are taken from aromatherapy, herbalism, acupuncture, traditional Chinese medicine, and homeopathy. The aim is to highlight common misunderstandings and misguided assumptions that may arise when research in the field of complementary and alternative medicine is undertaken, and to show how this may result in erroneous conclusions being drawn from data and have far reaching consequences for clinical practice.

Background

Methodology

Results

Conclusion

References

Veal L. Countering misleading information. Complementary Therapies in Nursing and Midwifery 10 (1): 54-57, Feb 2004.