Letter

Scientific evidence was ignored in CAM and the NHS

BMJ 2005; 331 doi: 10.1136/bmj.331.7523.1024-b (Published 27 October 2005)
Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:1024.3

Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment. Please log in or subscribe below.

  1. Peter H Canter, research fellow,
  2. Edzard Ernst, director
  1. Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Exeter EX2 4NT

    EDITOR—We would like to correct an error in Thompson and Feder's description of the methodology of our systematic review of UK cost effectiveness studies of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).1 2 We did not search for randomised studies. We included all prospective, controlled studies of any CAM modality carried out in the UK. All five happened to be randomised.

    That there were only five such studies restricted to spinal manipulation (four studies) and acupuncture (one) …

    Access to the full text of this article requires a subscription or payment

    Subscribe

    Article access

    Article access for 1 day

    Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*

    The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record

    * Prices do not include VAT

    Rapid responses

    THIS WEEK'S POLL

    Read related article

    See previous polls

    BMJ most popular