Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-5xszh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T20:55:16.171Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

EVALUATION OF RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS ON COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 May 2001

Bernard S. Bloom
Affiliation:
University of Pennsylvania
Aurélia Retbi
Affiliation:
Université de Paris
Sandrine Dahan
Affiliation:
Université Renée Descartes
Egon Jonsson
Affiliation:
Karolinska Institute and The Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care (SBU)

Abstract

Objectives: Use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is growing in all Western countries. The goal of this study was to evaluate quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of CAM interventions for specific diagnoses to inform clinical decision making.

Methods: MEDLINE and related databases were searched for CAM RCTs. Visual review was done of bibliographies, meta-analyses, and CAM journals. Inclusion criteria for review and scoring were blinded RCT, specified diagnosis and intervention, complete study published between January 1, 1966 and July 31, 1998 in an English-language, peer-reviewed journal. Two reviewers independently scored each study.

Results: More than 5,000 trials were found, but only 258 met all study inclusion criteria. The main cause for rejection (> 90%) was that the study was not an RCT or had no blinding. Mean score across 95 diagnosis/intervention categories was 44.7 (S.D. ± 14.3) on a 100-point scale. Ordinary least-squares regression found date of publication, biostatistician as author or consultant, published in one of five widely read English-language medical journals and diagnosis/intervention category of hypertension/relaxation as significant predictors of higher scores.

Conclusions: The overall quality of evidence for CAM RCTs is poor but improving slowly over time, about the same as that of biomedicine. Thus, most services are provided without good evidence of benefit.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© 2000 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)