Veal Lowana
Urarstekkur 5, 109, Reykjavík, Iceland.
Complement Ther Nurs Midwifery. 2004 Feb;10(1):54-7. doi: 10.1016/S1353-6117(03)00085-4.
Orthodox medicine generally demands evidence in the form of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) before accepting the value of a particular therapy/intervention from the CAM field. Yet many RCTs are badly executed as they are carried out by doctors or scientists rather than holistic practitioners, and peer reviewers for conventional medical journals may not have sufficient knowledge to be able to assess a CAM paper properly. This article discusses inadequacies found in RCTs and other papers related to CAM, and pinpoints how research should be critically evaluated and reviewed. Examples are taken from the fields of aromatherapy, herbalism, acupuncture/TCM and homeopathy. The aim of this paper is to highlight common misunderstandings and misguided assumptions that may arise when undertaking research in the field of complementary medicine that may result in erroneous conclusions being drawn from data and which may have far reaching implications for clinical practice. The STRICTA recommendations for acupuncture are discussed.
传统医学通常要求在接受补充替代医学领域某种特定疗法/干预措施的价值之前，要有随机对照试验（RCT）形式的证据。然而，许多随机对照试验执行得很差，因为它们是由医生或科学家而非整体疗法从业者开展的，而且传统医学期刊的同行评审员可能没有足够的知识来恰当地评估一篇补充替代医学论文。本文讨论了在随机对照试验及其他与补充替代医学相关的论文中发现的不足之处，并指出应如何对研究进行批判性评估和审查。例子取自芳香疗法、草药医学、针灸/传统中医和顺势疗法领域。本文的目的是强调在补充医学领域进行研究时可能出现的常见误解和错误假设，这些误解和假设可能导致从数据中得出错误结论，并可能对临床实践产生深远影响。文中还讨论了针对针灸的STRICTA建议。
