Evidence map›Paper›PMID 17291355›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2007

Researching complementary and alternative treatments--the gatekeepers are not at home.

Vinjar Fønnebø, Sameline Grimsgaard, Harald Walach, Cheryl Ritenbaugh, Arne Johan Norheim, Hugh MacPherson, George Lewith, Laila Launsø, Mary Koithan, Torkel Falkenberg and 2 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2007. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 90 papers, 6 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
90citing papers in PubMed, 6 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

90 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Acupuncture and related interventions for smoking cessation.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2014
    Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Trial
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review

30 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors.

Vinjar FønnebøNational Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Tromsø, N-9037 TROMSØ, Norway. Vinjar.Fonnebo@fagmed.uit.no
Sameline Grimsgaard
Harald Walach
Cheryl Ritenbaugh
Arne Johan Norheim
Hugh MacPherson
George Lewith
Laila Launsø
Mary Koithan
Torkel Falkenberg
Heather Boon
Mikel Aickin

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundTo explore the strengths and weaknesses of conventional biomedical research strategies and methods as applied to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to suggest a new research framework for assessing these treatment modalities. DISCUSSION: There appears to be a gap between published studies showing little or no efficacy of CAM, and reports of substantial clinical benefit from patients and CAM practitioners. This "gap" might be partially due to the current focus on placebo-controlled randomized trials, which are appropriately designed to answer questions about the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical agents. In an attempt to fit this assessment strategy, complex CAM treatment approaches have been dissected into standardized and often simplified treatment methods, and outcomes have been limited. Unlike conventional medicine, CAM has no regulatory or financial gatekeeper controlling their therapeutic "agents" before they are marketed. Treatments may thus be in widespread use before researchers know of their existence. In addition, the treatments are often provided as an integrated 'whole system' of care, without careful consideration of the safety issue. We propose a five-phase strategy for assessing CAM built on the acknowledgement of the inherent, unique aspects of CAM treatments and their regulatory status in most Western countries. These phases comprise: 1. Context, paradigms, philosophical understanding and utilization 2. Safety status 3. Comparative effectiveness. 4. Component efficacy 5. Biological mechanisms. SUMMARY: Using the proposed strategy will generate evidence relevant to clinical practice, while acknowledging the absence of regulatory and financial gatekeepers for CAM. It will also emphasize the important but subtle differences between CAM and conventional medical practice.

Indexed as

Complementary TherapiesBiomedical ResearchHumansSafety

Identifiers

PMID17291355
PMCPMC1800863

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.