Shea Jeanne L
Department of Anthropology, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT 05405, USA.
J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Apr;12(3):255-63. doi: 10.1089/acm.2006.12.255.
Drawing on recent paper published literature in both English and Chinese, this explores reactions to the evaluation of Chinese medicine using randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and the standards of evidence-based medicine (EBM). The literature review revealed a few sources which contend that Chinese medicine should not be evaluated on the basis of RCTs, but a far greater number which advocate for applying RCT and EBM standards to Chinese medicine. This paper describes the position of the detractors and points out ways in which their arguments contain oversimplified representations of Chinese medicine, biomedicine, EBM, and RCTs. In describing the position of the proponents, the analysis outlines some of the numerous innovative techniques they are developing for dealing with issues of control and standardization in efficacy research. Overall, the analysis indicates that important refinements are being generated in Chinese medicine research and clinical trial design in response to the challenges posed by the forced encounter of these two paradigms.
借鉴近期发表的中英文文献,本文探讨了人们对使用随机对照试验(RCT)和循证医学(EBM)标准来评价中医的反应。文献综述发现,少数资料认为中医不应基于随机对照试验进行评价,但更多资料主张将随机对照试验和循证医学标准应用于中医。本文阐述了反对者的立场,并指出他们的论点是如何对中医、生物医学、循证医学和随机对照试验进行了过度简化的表述。在描述支持者的立场时,分析概述了他们为应对疗效研究中的对照和标准化问题而开发的众多创新技术中的一些。总体而言,分析表明,为应对这两种范式的强行碰撞所带来的挑战,中医研究和临床试验设计正在进行重要的改进。