Clinical research in traditional medicine: Priorities and methods

被引:33
作者
Cardini, Francesco
Wade, Christine
Regalia, Anna Laura
Gui, Suiqi
Li, Wang
Raschetti, Roberto
Kronenberg, Fredi
机构
[1] Ist Super Sanita, I-00161 Rome, Italy
[2] Columbia Univ, Coll Phys & Surg, Dept Rehabil Med, Richard & Hinda Rosenthal Ctr Complementary & Alt, New York, NY 10027 USA
[3] Milan Bicocca Univ, Hosp S Gerardo Monza, Dept Gynecol & Obstet, Milan, Italy
[4] Fudan Univ, Obstet & Gynecol Hosp, Shanghai 200433, Peoples R China
关键词
traditional medicine; clinical research; methods; priorities; pragmatic trials;
D O I
10.1016/j.ctim.2006.07.003
中图分类号
R [医药、卫生];
学科分类号
10 [医学];
摘要
This paper explores the challenges and opportunities associated with the evaluation of treatments arising from traditional medical systems (TMS). Globalization and popular consumer-and industry-driven market forces contribute to the spread of traditional treatments, techniques and technologies, but do not necessarily ensure their usefulness or safety. The international scientific community is obliged to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these treatments because of their potential impact on global public health. Clinical evaluations of traditional treatments, however, have complex methodological and practical challenges, depending on the goals of the research and the audience for the results (country of origin; or new host countries and new patient populations). To address these challenges, the authors offer the following recommendations to identify and prioritize treatments to study and how to design study protocols. Evaluations of traditional treatments are best addressed first by collaborative, international, pragmatic studies. Protocols for observational, prospective, pragmatic pilot study (randomized and controlled, when feasible) should be designed collaboratively and executed simultaneously in the culture of origin and in new contexts. This, in turn, could determine the acceptability, usefulness and feasibility of larger randomized controlled trials (RCTs). International multicentre RCTs would have the potential benefits of evaluating safety and effectiveness and also assessing the transferability of a traditional treatment across social and cultural contexts. (c) 2006 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
引用
收藏
页码:282 / 287
页数:6
相关论文
共 28 条
[1]
Balick MichaelJ., 1996, Plants, People, and Culture: The Science of Ethnobotany
[2]
The psychologizing of Chinese healing practices in the United States [J].
Barnes, LL .
CULTURE MEDICINE AND PSYCHIATRY, 1998, 22 (04) :413-443
[3]
Berman BM, 2001, J ALTERN COMPLEM MED, V7, pS111
[4]
Lessons on integration from the developing world's experience [J].
Bodeker, G .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2001, 322 (7279) :164-167
[5]
Bodeker G., 2005, Global Atlas of Traditional, Complementary and Alternative Medicine
[6]
UNDERSTANDING RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS - EXPLANATORY OR PRAGMATIC [J].
CHARLTON, BG .
FAMILY PRACTICE, 1994, 11 (03) :243-244
[7]
Chaudhury RR, 2001, BRIT MED J, V322, P167
[8]
DULEY L, 2002, CLIN TRIALS
[9]
Research priorities in CAM [J].
Ernst, E .
COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN MEDICINE, 2001, 9 (03) :186-187
[10]
Exploring acupuncture: Ancient ideas, modern techniques [J].
Fee, E ;
Brown, TM ;
Lazarus, J ;
Theerman, P .
AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2002, 92 (10) :1592-1592