Advertisement

Research Methodology Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Therapies

  • 3 Citations

Abstract

Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) represents an opportunity to expand tools for assisting patients with health care issues, retain or increase market share by proactively responding to consumers, and increase our understanding of interventions outside of conventional medicine. CAM research is a flourishing area that is currently receiving a new focus as a result of the creation of recognized CAM research centers in university settings worldwide. Several botanical products, complex CAM interventions and individual approaches are now being tested with rigorous and well-controlled research. Adequate execution of clinical trials, however, represents a major challenge, particularly in medical fields such as pediatrics and CAM therapies such as acupuncture and herbal medicine.

The scientific community, industry, and consumers are joining efforts to provide reliable and objective information about the efficacy and safety of CAM therapies. Medical journals are publishing CAM-related issues regularly and there is concern about quality of clinical trials, reliability of results, placebo effect, and publication bias. The number of CAM clinical trials continues to grow although it is still very low compared with conventional medicine trials. There are major research methodology issues that need to be considered in CAM research that have not been completely and thoroughly evaluated. Nevertheless, ideas have been proposed and innovative projects are ongoing. The conduct of CAM research requires the commitment of the scientific community as well as substantial funding from governmental institutions and the pharmaceutical industry.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant unlimited access to the full article PDF.

US$ 39.95

Price includes VAT for USA

Subscribe to journal

Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.

US$ 189

This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.

References

  1. 1.

    Malik IA, Khan NA, Khan W. Use of unconventional methods of therapy by cancer patients in Pakistan. Eur J Epidemiol. 2000;16(2):155–160.

  2. 2.

    Wootton JC. Sparber A. Surveys of complementary and alternative medicine: part I. General trends and demographic groups. J Altern Complement Med. 2001;7(2):195–208.

  3. 3.

    Thomas KJ, Nicholl JP, Coleman P. Use and expenditure on complementary medicine in England: a population based survey. Complement Ther Med. 2001;9(1):2–11.

  4. 4.

    Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL. Appel S, Wilkey S. Van Rompay M. et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990–1997: Results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA. 1998;280(18):1569–1575.

  5. 5.

    Fisher P, Ward A. Complementary medicine in Europe. Br Med J. 1994;309(6947):107–111.

  6. 6.

    MacLennan AH, Wilson DH. Taylor AW. Prevalence and cost of alternative medicine in Australia. Lancet. 1996; 347(9001):569–573.

  7. 7.

    Archer C. Research issues in complementary therapies. Complement Ther Nurs Midwifery. 1999;5(4):108–114.

  8. 8.

    Astin JA, Marie A, Pelletier KR, Hansen E. Haskell WL. A review of the incorporation of complementary and alternative medicine by mainstream physicians. Arch Intern Med. 1998;158(21):2303–2310.

  9. 9.

    Kessler RC, Davis RB, Foster DF, Van Rompay MI, Walters EE, Wilkey SA, et al. Long-term trends in the use of complementary and alternative medical therapies in the United States. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(4):262–268.

  10. 10.

    Emst E. Research into complementary/alternative medicine: an attempt to dispel the myths. Int J Clin Pract. 2001;55(6):376–379.

  11. 11.

    Mills SY. The House of Lords report on complementary medicine: a summary. Complement Ther Med. 2001;9(1):34–39.

  12. 12.

    Nahin RL, Straus SE. Research into complementary and alternative medicine: problems and potential. Br Med J. 2001;20;322(7279):161–164.

  13. 13.

    Muscat M. Straus gives state of the center, CAM on PUBMED unveiled. Altern Ther Health Med. 2001;7(2):23–26.

  14. 14.

    Bensoussan A. Complementary medicine. Searching for the evidence. Aust Fam Physician. 2000;29(12):1129–1133

  15. 15.

    Vickers A. Recent advances: complementary medicine. Br Med J. 2000;321(7262):683–686.

  16. 16.

    Dougherty K, Touger-Decker R, O’Sullivan MJ. Personal and professional beliefs and practices regarding herbal medicine among the full time faculty of the Newark-based schools of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey. Integrative Med. 2000;2(2):57–64.

  17. 17.

    Haynes B. Can it work? Does it work? Is it worth it? The testing of healthcare interventions is evolving. Br Med J. 1999;319(7211):652–653.

  18. 18.

    Barnes J, Abbot NC, Harkness EF, Ernst E. Articles on complementary medicine in the mainstream medical literature: an investigation of MEDLINE, 1966 through 1996. Arch Intern Med. 1999;159(15):1721–1725.

  19. 19.

    Vickers AJ. Bibliometric analysis of randomised controlled trials in complementary medicine. Complement Ther Med. 1998;(6):185–189.

  20. 20.

    Eisenberg DM, et al. Unconventional Medicine in the United States: Prevalence, Cost, Patterns of Usage. New Engl J Med. 1993;328:246–252

  21. 21.

    Beyerstein BL. Alternative medicine and common errors of reasoning. Acad Med. 2001;76(3):230–237.

  22. 22.

    Bostrom H. Placebo—the forgotten drug. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1997;23 Suppl 3:53–57.

  23. 23.

    Vickers A. Methodological issues in complementary and alternative medicine research: a personal reflection on 10 years of debate in the United Kingdom. J Altern Complement Med. 1996;2(4):515–524.

  24. 24.

    Levin JS. Glass TA, Kushi LH, Schuck JR, Steele L, Jonas WB. Quantitative methods in research on complementary and alternative medicine. A methodological manifesto. NIH Office of Alternative Medicine. Med Care. 1997:35(11):1079–1094.

  25. 25.

    Enkin MW, Jadad AR. Using anecdotal information in evidence-based health care: heresy or necessity? Ann Oncol. 1998;9(9):963–966.

  26. 26.

    Redelmeier DA, Rozin P, Kahneman D. Understanding patients’ decisions. Cognitive and emotional perspectives. JAMA. 1993;270(1):72–76.

  27. 27.

    Benson K, Hartz AJ. A comparison of observational studies and randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2000;342(25):1878–1886.

  28. 28.

    Gill P, Dowell AC, Neal RD, Smith N, Heywood P, Wilson AE. Evidence based general practice: a retrospective study of interventions in one training practice. Br Med J. 1996;312(7034):819–821.

  29. 29.

    Sackett DL, Cook DJ. Can we learn anything from small trials? Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1993;703:25–31; discussion 31–2.:25–31.

  30. 30.

    Jadad A. Types of randomised controlled trials, In: Randomised Controlled Trials. A User’s Guide. Chapter 2. London: BMJ Books; 1998.

  31. 31.

    Jadad AR, Rennie D. The randomized controlled trial gets a middle-aged checkup. JAMA. 1998;279(4):319–320.

  32. 32.

    Gould AL. Another view of active-controlled trials. Control Clin Trials. 1991;12(4):474–485.

  33. 33.

    Resch K. Pragmatic randomised controlled trials for complex therapies. Forsch Komplementarmed. 1998; 5 Suppl SI: 136–139.:136–139.

  34. 34.

    Abel U, Koch A. The role of randomization in clinical studies: myths and beliefs. J Clin Epidemiol. 1999;52(6):487–497.

  35. 35.

    Wilson GT. The clinical utility of randomized controlled trials. Int J Eat Disord. 1998;24(1):13–29.

  36. 36.

    Britton A, McKee M, Black N, McPherson K, Sanderson C, Bain C. Threats to applicability of randomised trials: exclusions and selective participation. J Health Serv Res Policy. 1999;4(2):112–121.

  37. 37.

    Herman J. Shortcomings of the randomized controlled trial: a view from the boondocks. J Eval Clin Pract. 1998;4(4):283–286.

  38. 38.

    Bottomley A. To randomise or not to randomise: methodological pitfalls of the RCT design in psychosocial intervention studies. Eur J Cancer Care. 1997; 6(3):222–230.

  39. 39.

    Vijan S, Kent DM, Hayward RA. Are randomized controlled trials sufficient evidence to guide clinical practice in type II (non-insulin-dependent) diabetes mellitus? Diabetologia. 2000;43(1):125–130.

  40. 40.

    Clarke GN. Improving the transition from basic efficacy research to effectiveness studies: methodological issues and procedures. J Consult Clin Psychol. 1995;63(5):718–725.

  41. 41.

    Wells KB. Treatment research at the crossroads: the scientific interface of clinical trials and effectiveness research. Am J Psychiatry. 1999;156(1):5–10.

  42. 42.

    Hotopf M, Churchill R, Lewis G. Pragmatic randomised controlled trials in psychiatry. Br J Psychiatry. 1999;175:217–23.:217–223.

  43. 43.

    Hotopf M, Lewis G, Normand C. Putting trials on trial—the costs and consequences of small trials in depression: a systematic review of methodology. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1997:51(4):354–358.

  44. 44.

    Hilsden RJ, Verhoef MJ. Complementary and alternative medicine: evaluating its effectiveness in inflammatory bowel disease. Inflamm Bowel Dis. 1998;4(4):318–323.

  45. 45.

    Vickers A. A basic introduction to medical research. Part I: What is research and why do it? Complement TherNurs Midwifery. 1995:1(3):85–88.

  46. 46.

    Jacobson JS, Workman SB, Kronenberg F. Research on complementary and alternative therapies for cancer: issues and methodological considerations. J Am Med Womens Assoc. 1999;54(4):177–80, 183.

  47. 47.

    Walker LG, Anderson J. Testing complementary and alternative therapies within a research protocol. Eur J Cancer. 1999;35(11):1614–1618.

  48. 48.

    Rudolf MC, Lyth N, Bundle A, Rowland G, Kelly A, Bosson S et al. A search for the evidence supporting community paediatric practice. Arch Dis Child. 1999;80(3):257–261.

  49. 49.

    Geddes JR, Game D, Jenkins NE. Peterson LA, Pottinger GR, Sackett DL. What proportion of primary psychiatric interventions are based on evidence from randomised controlled trials? Qual Health Care. 1996;5(4):215–217.

  50. 50.

    Sackett DL, Wennberg JE. Choosing the best research design for each question. Br Med J. 1997;20-27:315(7123):1636.

  51. 51.

    Vickers A, Cassileth B. Emst E, Fisher P, Goldman P, Jonas W, et al. How should we research unconventional therapies? A panel report from the Conference on Complementary and Alternative Medicine Research Methodology, National Institutes of Health. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1997;13(1):111–121.

  52. 52.

    Vickers A. The NIH Methodology Conference: the methodology debate in the United Kingdom during the past ten years. J Altern Complement Med. 1995;1(2):209–212.

  53. 53.

    Silverman WA, Chalmers I. Sir Austin Bradford Hill: an appreciation. Control Clin Trials. 1992;13(2):100–105.

  54. 54.

    Moher D. Schulz KF. Altman DG. Upage L. The CONSORT statement: revised recommendations for improving the quality of reports of parallel-group randomised trials. Lancet. 2001:357(9263):1191–1194.

  55. 55.

    White A, Ernst E. The case for uncontrolled clinical trials: a starting point for the evidence base for CAM. Complement Ther Med. 2001;9(2):111–116.

  56. 56.

    Guyatt G. Sackett D, Taylor DW, Chong J, Roberts R, Pugsley S. Determining optimal therapy—randomized trials in individual patients. N Engl J Med. 1986;314(14):889–892.

  57. 57.

    Cook DJ. Randomized trials in single subjects: the N of 1 study. Psychopharmacol Bull. 1996;32(3):363–367.

  58. 58.

    Guyatt GH, Keller JL, Jaeschke R, Rosenbloom D, Adachi JD, Newhouse MT. The n-of-1 randomized controlled trial: clinical usefulness. Our three-year experience. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112(4):293–299.

  59. 59.

    Sackett DL, Haynes RB. Guyatt GH, Tugwell P. Clinical Epidemiology: A Basic Science for Clinical Medicine. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Little, Brown & Company; 1991.

  60. 60.

    Ernst E, Resch KL. The “optional cross-over design” for randomized controlled trials. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 1995;9(5):508–511.

  61. 61.

    Chadwick D. Monotherapy comparative trials: equivalence and differences in clinical trials. Epilepsy Res. 2001;45(1–3):101–103.

  62. 62.

    Chadwick D. Better comparisons of antiepileptic drugs: what measures of efficacy? Pharm World Sci. 1997;19(5):214–216.

  63. 63.

    Bero LA, Jadad AR. How consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(1):37–42.

  64. 64.

    Jadad AR. Randomised Controlled Trials: A User’s Guide. London, United Kingdom: BMJ Books; 1998.

  65. 65.

    Kemper KJ. Complementary and alternative medicine for children: does it work? Arch Dis Child. 2001;84(1):6–9.

  66. 66.

    Eisenberg DM, Kesslcr RC, Van Rompay MI, Kaptchuk TJ, Wilkey SA, Appel S. et al. Perceptions about complementary therapies relative to conventional therapies among adults who use both: results from a national survey. Ann Intern Med. 2001;135(5):344–351.

  67. 67.

    Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA. 1998;279:1548–1553.

  68. 68.

    Kemper KJ. Holistic pediatrics = good medicine. Pediatrics. 2000;105(1 Pt 3):214–218.

  69. 69.

    Spigelblatt L, Laine-Ammara G, Pless IB, Guyver A. The use of alternative medicine by children. Pediatrics. 1994;94(6 Pt 1):811–814.

  70. 70.

    Simpson N. Pearch A, Finlay F, Lenton S. The use of complementary medicine in pediatric outpatient clinics. Ambulatory Child Health. 1998;3:351–356.

  71. 71.

    Ottolini M, Hamburger E, Loprieto J. Alternative Medicine Use Among Children in the Washington DC Area. San Francisco, CA: Pediatric Academic Societies; 1999.

  72. 72.

    Kelly KM, Jacobson JS, Kennedy DD, Braudt SM, Mallick M, Weiner MA. Use of unconventional therapies by children with cancer at an urban medical center. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2000;22(5):412–416.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Carmen Tamayo MD.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Tamayo, C., Boon, H., Ghishan, F. et al. Research Methodology Evaluating Complementary and Alternative Therapies. Ther Innov Regul Sci 36, 535–548 (2002) doi:10.1177/009286150203600308

Download citation

Key Words

  • Alternative medicine
  • Complementary therapies
  • Research methodology
  • Clinical trials
  • Methods