Letters
Scientific evidence was ignored in CAM and the NHS
BMJ 2005; 331 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.331.7523.1024-b (Published 27 October 2005) Cite this as: BMJ 2005;331:1024
- 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) …
Log in
Log in using your username and password
Log in through your institution
Subscribe from £173 *
Subscribe and get access to all BMJ articles, and much more.
* For online subscription
Access this article for 1 day for:
£38 / $45 / €42 (excludes VAT)
You can download a PDF version for your personal record.