Complementary and alternative medicine and the need for evidence-based criticism.
Complementary and alternative medicine and the need for evidence-based criticism.
复制标题
补充和替代医学以及基于证据的批评的需要。
DOI:
10.1097/00001888-200209000-00006
复制
发表时间:
2002
期刊:
影响因子:
--
通讯作者:
Astin,JohnA
中科院分区:
文献类型:
--
作者:
Astin,JohnA
After reading the recent set of papers entitled “Alternative Medicine: The Importance of Evidence in Medicine and Medical Education,” published in the March 2001 issue of Academic Medicine, I feel compelled to respond to a number of the points raised by the authors.With the exception of the paper by Frenkel and Ben-Arye, which was quite fair and even-handed, 1 throughout the set the claim is frequently made that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is not evidence-based. However, the great irony with this and many other statements contained in this set of articles is that such claims of “lack of evidence” are typically not backed up with any supporting evidence themselves (what one might term “non—evidence-based criticism”). To give but one example, Grollman states that “the list of demonstrably effective herbals today would consist of opium poppy, cinchona, ergot, ipecacuanha, foxglove, cocoa, belladonna, and ma huang.” 2 However, the author either appears unaware of, or (worse) completely overlooks or ignores the results of positive (or at least highly suggestive) meta-analyses for a number of other herbals and nutraceuticals, including St. John's wort for mild to moderate depression, 3, 4 saw palmetto for benign prostatic hyperplasia, 5, 6 Gingko biloba for dementia, 7 Alzheimer's disease, 8 and intermittent claudication, 9 kava kava for anxiety, 10 yohimbine for erectile dysfunction, 11 and glucosamine—chondroitin for osteoarthritis. 12 The failure to cite such evidence contributes to a very misleading picture of the state of the scientific evidence base underlying CAM.