Challenges in Systematic Reviews of Complementary and Alternative Medicine Topics

Published in: Annals of Internal Medicine, v. 142, no. 12, pt. 2, June 21, 2005, p. 1042-1047, W-246-W-248

Posted on RAND.org on January 01, 2005

by Paul G. Shekelle, Sally C. Morton, Marika Booth, Nina Buscemi, Carol Friesen

Read More

Access further information on this document at www.annals.org

This article was published outside of RAND. The full text of the article can be found at the link above.

The use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) continues to grow in the United States. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality has devoted a substantial proportion of the Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program to systematic reviews of CAM. Such syntheses present different challenges from those conducted on western medicine topics, and in many ways are more difficult. The author discuss 3 challenges: identifying evidence about CAM, assessing the quality of individual studies, and addressing rare serious adverse events. The author use illustrations from EPC evidence reports to show readers approaches to the 3 areas and then present specific recommendations for each issue.

Research conducted by

This report is part of the RAND Corporation external publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.

The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.