Jump to: Page Content, Site Navigation, Site Search,
You are seeing this message because your web browser does not support basic web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.
BMJ 2007;334:507 (10 March), doi:10.1136/bmj.39122.551250.BE
David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology
Department of Pharmacology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT
d.colquhoun@ucl.ac.uk
Demand for complementary and alternative medicine is high despite limited evidence. Linda Franck and colleagues believe that a thorough review by NICE would benefit the NHS and patients, but David Colquhoun argues that it cannot afford to re-examine evidence that has shown little benefit
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
One of the most important roles of the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) is to assess which treatments produce sufficient benefit that the National Health Service should pay for them. Since the money available to the NHS is not infinite, making choices of this sort is inevitable, and it is in the interests of patients that dispassionate judgments are made on the efficacy of treatments.
If the effectiveness of a treatment is disputed, what could be more obvious than to refer it to NICE for a judgment of the evidence? Nothing is more disputed than the effectiveness of alternative medicine, so why has NICE not adjudicated? Even the Smallwood report, sponsored by the Prince of Wales, did not pretend to find good evidence, but recommended that NICE should be invited "to carry out a full assessment of the cost-effectiveness of the therapies"1 The Smallwood report was greeted
Read all Rapid Responses
What can you learn from this BMJ paper? Read Leanne Tite's Paper+