High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research

BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Benno Brinkhaus^1,11  Wolfgang Weidenhammer^1,12  Bernhard Uehleke⁴  Bettina Reiter⁹  Helle Johannessen⁵  Vinjar Fønnebø²  Torkel Falkenberg³  Francesco Cardini⁶  Klaus von Ammon⁷  Klaus Linde^1,10  Claudia M Witt⁸  George Lewith¹  Felix H Fischer^1,11 

[1]Complementary and Integrated Medicine Research Unit, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK

[2]National Research Center on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NAFKAM), University of Tromsø, Tromsø, Norway

[3]I C – The Integrative Care Science Center, Järna, Sweden

[4]Institute of Complementary Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland

[5]Institute of Public Health, Research Unit Health, Man and Society, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark

[6]Healthcare and Social Agency of Emilia Romagna Region, Bologna, Italy

[7]Institute of Complementary Medicine (KIKOM), University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland

[8]Center for Integrative Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, USA

[9]International Academy for Holistic Medicine, Vienna, Austria

[10]Institute of General Practice, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany

[11]Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité Universitätsmedizin, Luisenstr. 57, 10098 Berlin, Germany

[12]Competence Centre for Complementary Medicine and Naturopathy, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technische Universität, Munich, Germany

关键词: Comparative effectiveness research;    Qualitative studies;    Safety;    Randomized clinical trials;    Research strategy;    Complementary and alternative medicine;   

Others  :  1220275
DOI  :  10.1186/1472-6882-14-46

 received in 2013-08-12, accepted in 2014-02-04,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens’ needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public’s health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Fischer et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, Appel S, Wilkey S, Van Rompay M, Kessler RC: Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. JAMA 1998, 280:1569-1575.
• [2]Härtel U, Volger E: Use and acceptance of classical natural and alternative medicine in Germany–findings of a representative population-based survey. Forsch Komplementarmed 2004, 11:327-334.
• [3]Bücker B, Groenewold M, Schoefer Y, Schäfer T: The use of complementary alternative medicine (CAM) in 1 001 German adults: results of a population-based telephone survey. Gesundheitswesen 2008, 70:e29-e36.
• [4]Bodeker G, Ong CK, Grundy C, Burford G, Shein K: WHO Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Kobe: World Health Organization; 2005.
• [5]Committee on the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine by the American Public: Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the United States. Washington, DC: National Academies Press (US); 2005.
• [6]Weidenhammer W, Lewith G, Falkenberg T, Fønnebø V, Johannessen H, Reiter B, Uehleke B, von Ammon K, Baumhöfener F, Brinkhaus B: EU FP7 project “CAMbrella” to build European research network for complementary and alternative medicine. Forsch Komplementarmed 2011, 18:69-76.
• [7]Wiesener S, Falkenberg T, Hegyi G, Hök J, Roberti di Sarsina P, Fønnebø V: Legal status and regulation of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe. Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:29-36.
• [8]Nissen N, Schunder-Tatzber S, Weidenhammer W, Johannessen H: What attitudes and needs do citizens in europe have in relation to complementary and alternative medicine? Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:9-17.
• [9]Eardley S, Bishop FL, Prescott P, Cardini F, Brinkhaus B, Santos-Rey K, Vas J, von Ammon K, Hegyi G, Dragan S, Uehleke B, Fønnebø V, Lewith G: A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU. Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:18-28.
• [10]Fischer HF, Junne F, Witt C, von Ammon K, Cardini F, Fønnebø V, Johannessen H, Lewith G, Uehleke B, Weidenhammer W, Brinkhaus B: Key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in complementary and alternative medicine - a systematic literature review. Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:51-60.
• [11]Falkenberg T, Lewith G, Roberti di Sarsina P, von Ammon K, Santos-Rey K, Hök J, Frei-Erb M, Vas J, Saller R, Uehleke B: Towards a Pan-European definition of complementary and alternative medicine - a realistic ambition? Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:6-8.
• [12]Von Ammon K, Frei-Erb M, Cardini F, Daig U, Dragan S, Hegyi G, Roberti di Sarsina P, Sörensen J, Lewith G: Complementary and alternative medicine provision in Europe - first results approaching reality in an unclear field of practices. Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:37-43.
• [13]Hök J, Lewith G, Weidenhammer W, Santos-Rey K, Fønnebø V, Wiesener S, Falkenberg T: International development of traditional medicine / complementary and alternative medicine research - What can Europe learn? Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:44-50.
• [14]Von EE, Altman D, Egger M, Pocock S, Gotzsche P, Vandenbroucke J: Strobe Initiative: The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Ann Intern Med 2007, 147:573-578.
• [15]Reiter B, Baumhöfener F, Dlaboha M, Odde Madsen J, Regenfelder S, Weidenhammer W: Building a sustainable complementary and alternative medicine research network in Europe. Forsch Komplementarmed 2012, 19:61-68.
• [16]Fonnebo V, Grimsgaard S, Walach H, Ritenbaugh C, Norheim AJ, MacPherson H, Lewith G, Launsø L, Koithan M, Falkenberg T, Boon H, Aickin M: Researching complementary and alternative treatments–the gatekeepers are not at home. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007, 7:7. BioMed Central Full Text
• [17]Tunis S, Stryer D, Clancy C: Practical clinical trials. JAMA 2003, 290:1624-1632.
• [18]Our Questions, Our Decisions: Standards for Patient-centered Outcomes Research http://pcori.org/assets/MethodologyReport-Comment.pdf webcite
• [19]VanLare JM, Conway PH, Sox HC: Five next steps for a new national program for comparative-effectiveness research. N Engl J Med 2010, 362:970-973.
• [20]Craig P, Dieppe P, Macintyre S, Michie S, Nazareth I, Petticrew M: Developing and evaluating complex interventions: the new Medical Research Council guidance. Br Med J 2008, 337:979-983.
• [21]Hoffman A, Montgomery R, Aubry W, Tunis SR: How best to engage patients, doctors, and other stakeholders in designing comparative effectiveness studies. Health Aff 2010, 29:1834-1841.
• [22]Kaptchuk TJ: The Placebo effect in alternative medicine: can the performance of a healing ritual have clinical significance? Ann Intern Med 2002, 136:817-825.
• [23]Linde K, Niemann K, Schneider A, Meissner K: How large are the nonspecific effects of acupuncture? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Med 2010, 8:75. BioMed Central Full Text
• [24]Haake M, Muller H, Schade-Brittinger C, Basler H, Schafer H, Maier C, Endres H, Trampisch H, Molsberger A: German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) for chronic low back pain: randomized, multicenter, blinded, parallel-group trial with 3 groups. Arch Intern Med 2007, 167:1892-1898.
• [25]Linde K, Allais G, Brinkhaus B, Manheimer E, Vickers A, White AR: Acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, (1):CD001218.
• [26]Paterson C, Dieppe P: Characteristic and incidental (placebo) effects in complex interventions such as acupuncture. Br Med J 2005, 330:1202-1205.
• [27]NCCAM Strategic Plan 2011-2015 http://nccam.nih.gov/about/plans/2011 webcite