PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 12822547

[Alternative medicine].

Abstract

The so called alternative medicines are widely used and traditional physicians largely ignore them and their nature. So, it is necessary that medical practitioners are informed on the scientific bases about the alternative medicines and about the results of double-blind studies, if any, that show their usefulness, or lack of it. So, we reviewed the scientific rationales and the results of the available double-blind studies with placebo controls, both in conventional medical journals and textbooks as well as in those of the alternative medicine and produced by professionals of both conventional and alternative medicine. The scientific rationale of the alternative medicine is not based on the scientific method. Although there are some controlled, double-blind, placebo studies, those few with favorable results have not been successfully reproduced. The modalities known as alternative medicines have not shown any usefulness or advantage, aside from a placebo effect. Even more, they are not free from untoward or undesirable side effects, some of which are well documented. We conclude that there is not any real application for these therapeutic practices.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Jesús H del Real Sánchez, Miguel Rodríguez Pérez. [Alternative medicine].. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12822547/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Complementary and alternative medicine for noncancer pain.

In summary, the past several years have shown an increase in the quality of trials examining the clinical efficacy of various CAM modalities for pain conditions. There is still need to raise the quality of the studies from a scientific and methodological point of view in many areas of CAM research by randomization, appropriate sample size, blinding, and developing more sophisticated sham procedures. However, much work still has to be done to find ways to preserve the clinical authenticity of CAM treatment methods when brought into the light of a research protocol. Recent attempts have been made to find a method of maintaining the standardization and reproducibility of research protocols while allowing the kind of flexible treatment that would normally be applied in a clinical setting. Other questions that should be answered with future studies include understanding how treatment length influences outcome, if maintenance treatments are needed for chronic conditions, and cost and risk comparisons with standard pharmacological treatment. Providing this kind of detail will assist both with reproducibility as well as help us gain a better understanding about whether certain treatment paradigms are superior to others for specific clinical conditions. Finally, physicians who have an interest in pursuing CAM research should educate themselves both about the methodological issues inherent with the particular area of interest as well as about ways to maintain the authenticity of the CAM treatment protocols so that the literature is not populated with more poorly designed studies. With the emerging interest in integrative medicine, there is a growing interest in collaboration and a greater number of physicians are interested in obtaining training in CAM modalities to help bridge this gap between CAM and conventional clinicians. For example, the American Academy of Medical Acupuncturists (AAMA) has been formed to help as both an educational and research forum for physician acupuncturists and the American Holistic Medical Association provides educational exposure in a broad range of Integrative and CAM modalities. The future of medicine will likely be Integrative and the more health care providers can educate themselves about this area of medicine, the better they will be able to provide the highest quality of care to their patients.

Complementary Therapies↗