Scientific evidence was ignored in CAM and the NHS

doi:10.1136/bmj.331.7523.1024-b

From trainee to consultant, BMJ Group offers doctors around the world tailored information, special events, learning resources and recruitment services at every step along their career path.

... by doctors, for doctors, for patients
We are open for entries!

Online learning

BMJ Learning

High-quality CME / CPD for doctors and other healthcare professionals. BMJ Learning features hundreds of accredited, peer-reviewed learning modules in text, video, and audio formats. Find out more

Courses and Qualifications

BMJ Masterclasses

BMJ Masterclasses, led by experts, help clinicians to use the latest evidence and recent guidelines in practice and meet their CPD/CME requirements. Find out more

Exam Preparation

The leading provider of online exam preparation, helping over 167,000 healthcare professionals to pass their exams. Find out more

onExamination

Search all BMJ comment articles:

From

Limit by

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

Peter H Canter, research fellow,
Edzard Ernst, director

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) …