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

  1. David Colquhoun, professor of pharmacology
  1. Department of Pharmacology, University College London, London WC1E 6BT
  1. d.colquhoun{at}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

    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 …

    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