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;335:951 (10 November), doi:10.1136/bmj.39388.393970.1F
| The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. |
Scientific heavyweights deplore the NHS money wasted on unproved and disproved treatments used by practitioners of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM),1 2 but Lewith, a CAM proponent [see previous letter], is cited elsewhere as saying that the BMJ reckons that 50% of the treatments used in general practice aren't proved, and 5% are pretty harmful but still being used.3
His data were taken from the BMJ Clinical Evidence website (http://clinicalevidence.com/ceweb/about/knowledge/jsp, viewed 6 May 2007). A pie chart indicates that, of about 2500 treatments supported by good evidence, only 15% of treatments were rated as beneficial, 22% as likely to be beneficial, 7% part beneficial and part harmful, 5% unlikely to be beneficial, 4% likely to be ineffective or harmful, and in the remaining 47% the effect of the treatment was "unknown." The text says, "The figures suggest that the research community has a large task ahead and that most
John S Garrow, vice chairman, HealthWatch
The Dial House, Rickmansworth WD3 7DQ
johngarrow@aol.com
Read all Rapid Responses