ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2017
Whole Medical Systems versus the System of Conventional Biomedicine: A Critical, Narrative Review of Similarities, Differences, and Factors That Promote the Integration Process.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
22 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Efficacy of homoeopathic treatment: Systematic review of meta-analyses of randomised placebo-controlled homoeopathy trials for any indication.Systematic reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Touching body, soul, and spirit? Understanding external applications from integrative medicine: A mixed methods systematic review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Primary Care or Primary Problem? Aligning Access Pathways with Patient Needs Across the Care Continuum.Journal of market access & health policy · 2026Article
- Framework for evidence synthesis of traditional, complementary and integrative medicine systems incorporating context and complexity, illustrated by the example of homeopathy.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Traditional, complementary and integrative health within universal systems: a transdisciplinary integrative approach to chronic conditions in the Brazilian SUS.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Effectiveness of Homoeopathic Treatments for Sleep Disorders in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review According to the Principles of Evidence-Based Medicine.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Review
- Review
- Article
- Nurses' perceptions of metaparadigmatic concepts in anthroposophic nursing.Revista brasileira de enfermagem · 2025Article
- Innovative Statistical Model Uncover Effective Herbal Medicines Among Personalized Treatment Plans in Persian Medicine: A Small-Scale Study in Type 2 Diabetes.Journal of integrative and complementary medicine · 2024Observational
- Traditional, complementary and integrative healthcare: global stakeholder perspective on WHO's current and future strategy.BMJ global health · 2023Review
- The Brief History of Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Terminology and the Development and Creation of an Operational Definition.Integrative medicine research · 2023Article
- Integrative Medicine for Ovarian Cancer.Current oncology reports · 2023Review
- The Influence of Medicine Approaches on Patient Trust, Satisfaction, and Loyalty.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Anthroposophic Medicinal Products: A Literature Review of Features, Similarities and Differences to Conventional Medicinal Products, Scientific and Regulatory Assessment.Global advances in health and medicine · 2022Article
- Comparing scientific worldviews between allopathic medical degree and East Asian medicine degree students utilizing the thinking about science survey instrument (TSSI).BMC medical education · 2021Article
- Article
- Determinants of Knowledge About Dietary Supplements Among Polish Internet Users: Nationwide Cross-sectional Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2021Article
- Whole Systems Research Methods in Health Care: A Scoping Review.Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.) · 2019Article
- Contributing to Global Health: Development of a Consensus-Based Whole Systems Research Strategy for Anthroposophic Medicine.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is an increasing need for a worldwide professional integration of conventional medicine and traditional/complementary whole medical systems (WMSs). However, the integration is perceived by conventional medicine as problematic or unacceptable, because of a supposed lack of evidence for specific effects of WMSs therapies and supposed prescientific or unscientific paradigms of WMSs.
objectivesTo review the literature on the features of WMSs, similarities and differences between conventional medicine and WMSs, and scientific and clinical practice issues that should be dealt with in order to promote the integration process.
methodsA critical, narrative review of the literature on six WMSs. RESULTS AND
conclusionsKey factors for the integration of WMSs and conventional medicine are as follows: legal frameworks, quality standards, high-quality research on safety and efficacy of WMS interventions, infrastructure, and financial resources. For scientific assessment of WMSs, there are unresolved ontological, epistemological, and methodological issues and issues of diagnostics, therapy delivery, and outcome assessment in clinical practice. Future research not only should be directed at quality assurance and generating the necessary data on safety and efficacy/effectiveness but also should address more fundamental (ontological, epistemological, and methodological) issues, in order to overcome the differences between WMSs and conventional medicine.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.