Evaluating complementary medicine: methodological challenges of randomised controlled trials.

TLDR: Complementary medicine is increasingly popular for treating many different problems, but doctors and patients need evidence about complementary treatments, but randomised controlled trials need to be carefully designed to take holism into account and avoid invalid results.

Abstract: Complementary medicine is increasingly popular for treating many different problems. Doctors and patients need evidence about complementary treatments, but randomised controlled trials need to be carefully designed to take holism into account and avoid invalid results You think that by understanding one, you can understand two, for one and one is two. But to understand two, you must first understand “and.” Sufi saying1 Complementary medicine should be evaluated as rigorously as conventional medicine to protect the public from charlatans and unsafe practices,2–5 but many practitioners of complementary medicine are reticent about evaluation of their practice. Sceptics maintain that this is because of fear that investigations will find treatments ineffective and threaten livelihoods. In defence, many practitioners argue that research methods dissect their practice in a reductionist manner and fail to take into account complementary medicine's holistic nature leading to invalid evaluation. #### Summary points Complementary medicine comprises many different disciplines, a wide spectrum of practices and philosophies which differ from conventional medicine. Conventional medicine traditionally aims to diagnose illness and treat, cure, or alleviate symptoms. Many complementary disciplines aim not only to relieve symptoms and restore wellness but also to help individuals in a process of self healing within a holistic view of health. In this view, individuals are more than just mind, body, and spirit in a social—family …