AbstractThe paper aims to dispute common arguments put forward by practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in discussions against conducting clinical trials in CAM treatment protocols. It is argued that CAM therapies cannot be evaluated by the same criteria as those applied in conventional medicine due to specificity of CAM. This paper suggests that this line of thought undermines not only the validity of CAM therapies, but, importantly, is delaying understanding their therapeutical value. We also argue that despite apparent differences in approach both conventional medicine and CAM aim to improve human well being therefore CAM should be validated with well established and widely accepted process of balancing of risks and benefits of individual therapies as in conventional medicine clinical trials.
Download data is not yet available.
- Asch D, Patton J, Hershey J. Knowing for the sake of knowing: the value of prognostic information. Med Decis Making. 1990;10(1):47–57.
- Thompson R. Causality, mathematical models and statistical association: dismantling evidence-based medicine. J Eval Clin Pract. 2010;16(2):267–275.
- Timio M, Antiseri D. Evidence-based medicine: reality and illusions. Extension of epistemological reflexions. Ital Heart J Suppl. 2000;1(3):411–414.
- Crane V, Economic Aspects of Clinical Decision Making: Applications of Clinical Decision Analysis. Am J Hosp Pharm. 1988;45(3):548–553.
- Tavakoli M, Davies H, Thomson R. Decision analysis in evidence-based decision making. J Eval Clin Pract. 2000;6(2):111–120.
- Croskerry P. A Universal Model of diagnostic reasoning Acad Med. 2009;84(8):1022–1028.
- Federspil G, Vettor R. Can Scientific Medicine Incorporate Alternative Medicine? The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine. 2000;6(3):241–244.
- Lundberg G, Fontanarosa P. Alternative Medicine Meets Science. JAMA. 1998;280(18):1618–1619.