Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
7
pubmed:dateCreated
1988-2-16
pubmed:abstractText
The increased interest of the public and the medical profession in complementary forms of therapy introduces an urgent need for proper assessment of efficacy. This growth in popularity suggests that complementary therapies are effective in some circumstances, but without objective assessment neither the public nor the medical profession can be sure. Rigorous scientific assessment is required, but the nature of complementary therapy is such that double-blind randomized controlled trials, as usually conducted, are rarely applicable, and alternative approaches are needed. At its best, complementary therapy is designed individually for each patient, and few treatments can readily be applied 'blind'. These are the main problems in trial design but complementary therapists are also aware of the importance of body-mind interactions: they see the 'placebo effect' as an integral part of treatment which needs investigation, and they question the validity of clinical trials in which the patient's will is not fully engaged through lack of information, and of those not asking the patients if they feel better. The problems are examined and alternative approaches suggested. The paper raises the question of whether they are only problems for complementary medicine.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:issn
0277-6715
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
6
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
761-71
pubmed:dateRevised
2007-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:articleTitle
Some methodological problems in the assessment of complementary therapy.
pubmed:affiliation
University Department of Immunology, General Infirmary, Leeds, U.K.
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article