Related Experiment Videos
Evaluation of randomized controlled trials on complementary and alternative medicine
Summary
The quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is generally poor, though slowly improving. Most CAM services lack strong evidence of benefit, highlighting a need for better research quality.
Area of Science:
- Integrative medicine research
- Evidence-based healthcare
Background:
- Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is increasing globally.
- High-quality evidence is crucial for informed clinical decision-making.
Purpose of the Study:
- To assess the quality of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for CAM interventions.
- To identify factors influencing the quality of CAM research.
Main Methods:
- Searched MEDLINE and other databases for CAM RCTs published between 1966 and 1998.
- Applied strict inclusion criteria including blinding and peer-review.
- Two independent reviewers scored 258 eligible studies.
Main Results:
- Only 258 out of over 5,000 trials met inclusion criteria, primarily due to lack of RCT design or blinding.
- The average quality score was 44.7/100.
- Higher scores correlated with later publication dates, biostatistician involvement, publication in major journals, and hypertension/relaxation interventions.
Conclusions:
- The overall quality of evidence for CAM RCTs is low but shows gradual improvement.
- CAM research quality is comparable to that of conventional biomedicine.
- Many CAM services are offered without robust evidence of efficacy.