scholarly journals Comparison of complementary and alternative medicine with conventional mind–body therapies for chronic back pain: protocol for the Mind–body Approaches to Pain (MAP) randomized controlled trial

Trials ◽  
2014 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel C Cherkin ◽  
Karen J Sherman ◽  
Benjamin H Balderson ◽  
Judith A Turner ◽  
Andrea J Cook ◽  
...  

Complementary and alternative medicine therapies have been widely used for self-care for many years for the treatment of chronic back pain, headaches, and multiple other conditions. Traditional medical care has started to recognize its place in supplementing conventional treatments. It is important for nurses to develop their knowledge and skills in complementary therapies to be able to advise and support their patients and in some cases provide appropriate interventions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 551-557 ◽  
Author(s):  
Huiqing Zhang ◽  
Geliang Yang ◽  
Wei Zhang ◽  
Wei Gu ◽  
Yonghua Su ◽  
...  

Background: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been widely used by cancer patients and oncologists in the past decades. The present study aimed to examine and compare the characteristics and registration status of published studies in a sample of recently published CAM randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports of oncology in leading journals of 3 categories: general and internal medicine (GIM), clinical oncology (CO), and CAM. Methods: Articles published in the top 5 journals of the 3 categories from 2006 to 2015 were searched in PubMed. Basic characteristics, registration information, impact factor, and citations were identified and extracted from the included RCTs. Data were summarized by frequency, mean, and median and compared using χ2 test and Kruskal-Wallis H test. Results: A total of 59 RCTs were included; among them, 34 (58%) could be identified with a registration number. GIM journals (15) enjoyed the highest average number of citations per article, followed by CO (12) and CAM (3) journals ( P < .0001). ClinicalTrials.gov was the most popular registry for these RCTs. Of the RCTs registered in ClinicalTrials.gov , 24% (4/17) of the published studies in CO journals put their results in the registry; however, no study in GIM and CAM journals put the result in the registry ( P = .372). Conclusion: The top GIM, CO, and CAM journals rarely published CAM RCTs of oncology from 2006 to 2015, and the CAM articles of oncology were less cited. However, there was a clear improvement in the trial registration rate over the past decades.


PAIN Reports ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. e959
Author(s):  
Michael W. Donnino ◽  
Garrett S. Thompson ◽  
Shivani Mehta ◽  
Myrella Paschali ◽  
Patricia Howard ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Isaac Golden

Complementary and alternative medicine is criticized by some as lacking evidence to support the effectiveness of its methods and medicines. Such critics typically point to mixed results from using randomized controlled trials to test complementary and alternative medicine. Randomized controlled trials have been held to be the “gold standard” in pharmaceutical research, but a growing body of evidence in orthodox journals has identified their limitations. Here, 5 fundamental flaws in the randomized controlled trial–based model are discussed as well as the impact on its relevance for testing complementary and alternative medicine therapies. A better way to evaluate complementary and alternative medicine therapies is also proposed. A 7-item checklist is suggested to quantify the strength of an area of complementary and alternative medicine research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document