Abstract
The Journal of Alternative and Complementary MedicineVol. 16, No. 12 Letters to the EditorProspective Meta-Analysis Within Complementary Medicine ResearchDawn-Marie WalkerDawn-Marie WalkerSearch for more papers by this authorPublished Online:7 Dec 2010https://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2010.0529AboutSectionsView articleView Full TextPDF/EPUB ToolsPermissionsDownload CitationsTrack CitationsAdd to favorites Back To Publication ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InRedditEmail View article"Prospective Meta-Analysis Within Complementary Medicine Research." , 16(12), p. 1249FiguresReferencesRelatedDetailsCited byUsing a randomised controlled trial (RCT) methodology in CAM research with gynaecological cancer patients: A commentary on the perks and pitfallsComplementary Therapies in Clinical Practice, Vol. 21, No. 1 Volume 16Issue 12Dec 2010 InformationCopyright 2010, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.To cite this article:Dawn-Marie Walker.Prospective Meta-Analysis Within Complementary Medicine Research.The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine.Dec 2010.1249-1249.http://doi.org/10.1089/acm.2010.0529Published in Volume: 16 Issue 12: December 7, 2010Online Ahead of Print:November 23, 2010PDF download
Highlights
Dear Editor: It appears that medical research funders are reluctant to provide sufficient funding to allow fully powered randomized control trials (RCTs) within the field of complementary medicine (CM)
Our research area is awash with promising, but not fully powered data or lower-level noncontrolled data. This lack of efficacy resulting from problems involving trying to apply the ‘‘gold standard’’ of RCTs results in health organizations not integrating CM into health care provision, regardless of patients’ opinions
Health organizations base many of their guidelines on what they regard as the top level of evidence, which are regarded as the gold standard of evidence by health care policymakers
Summary
Dear Editor: It appears that medical research funders are reluctant to provide sufficient funding to allow fully powered randomized control trials (RCTs) within the field of complementary medicine (CM). Health organizations base many of their guidelines on what they regard as the top level of evidence (i.e., systematic reviews [SRs]), which are regarded as the gold standard of evidence by health care policymakers. SRs are based on the results from RCTs, such as the ones adopted by the Cochrane Collaboration, there are moves to develop methodologies to systemize reviews of other, non-RCT articles, such being able to include cohort or qualitative papers.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
