Cargando…

Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine

This opinion deals critically with the so-called complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapy on the basis of current data. From the authors’ perspective, CAM prescriptions and most notably the extensive current endeavours to the “integration” of CAM into conventional patient care is problema...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Anlauf, Manfred, Hein, Lutz, Hense, Hans-Werner, Köbberling, Johannes, Lasek, Rainer, Leidl, Reiner, Schöne-Seifert, Bettina
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161049
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/000209
_version_ 1782378114934898688
author Anlauf, Manfred
Hein, Lutz
Hense, Hans-Werner
Köbberling, Johannes
Lasek, Rainer
Leidl, Reiner
Schöne-Seifert, Bettina
author_facet Anlauf, Manfred
Hein, Lutz
Hense, Hans-Werner
Köbberling, Johannes
Lasek, Rainer
Leidl, Reiner
Schöne-Seifert, Bettina
author_sort Anlauf, Manfred
collection PubMed
description This opinion deals critically with the so-called complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapy on the basis of current data. From the authors’ perspective, CAM prescriptions and most notably the extensive current endeavours to the “integration” of CAM into conventional patient care is problematic in several respects. Thus, several CAM measures are used, although no specific effects of medicines can be proved in clinical studies. It is extensively explained that the methods used in this regard are those of evidence-based medicine, which is one of the indispensable pillars of science-oriented medicine. This standard of proof of efficacy is fundamentally independent of the requirement of being able to explain efficacy of a therapy in a manner compatible with the insights of the natural sciences, which is also essential for medical progress. Numerous CAM treatments can however never conceivably satisfy this requirement; rather they are justified with pre-scientific or unscientific paradigms. The high attractiveness of CAM measures evidenced in patients and many doctors is based on a combination of positive expectations and experiences, among other things, which are at times unjustified, at times thoroughly justified, from a science-oriented view, but which are non-specific (context effects). With a view to the latter phenomenon, the authors consider the conscious use of CAM as unrevealed therapeutic placebos to be problematic. In addition, they advocate that academic medicine should again systematically endeavour to pay more attention to medical empathy and use context effects in the service of patients to the utmost. The subsequent opinion discusses the following after an introduction to medical history: the definition of CAM; the efficacy of most common CAM procedures; CAM utilisation and costs in Germany; characteristics of science-oriented medicine; awareness of placebo research; pro and contra arguments about the use of CAM, not least of all in terms of aspects related to medical ethics.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4480118
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher German Medical Science GMS Publishing House
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-44801182015-07-09 Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine Anlauf, Manfred Hein, Lutz Hense, Hans-Werner Köbberling, Johannes Lasek, Rainer Leidl, Reiner Schöne-Seifert, Bettina Ger Med Sci Article This opinion deals critically with the so-called complementary and alternative medical (CAM) therapy on the basis of current data. From the authors’ perspective, CAM prescriptions and most notably the extensive current endeavours to the “integration” of CAM into conventional patient care is problematic in several respects. Thus, several CAM measures are used, although no specific effects of medicines can be proved in clinical studies. It is extensively explained that the methods used in this regard are those of evidence-based medicine, which is one of the indispensable pillars of science-oriented medicine. This standard of proof of efficacy is fundamentally independent of the requirement of being able to explain efficacy of a therapy in a manner compatible with the insights of the natural sciences, which is also essential for medical progress. Numerous CAM treatments can however never conceivably satisfy this requirement; rather they are justified with pre-scientific or unscientific paradigms. The high attractiveness of CAM measures evidenced in patients and many doctors is based on a combination of positive expectations and experiences, among other things, which are at times unjustified, at times thoroughly justified, from a science-oriented view, but which are non-specific (context effects). With a view to the latter phenomenon, the authors consider the conscious use of CAM as unrevealed therapeutic placebos to be problematic. In addition, they advocate that academic medicine should again systematically endeavour to pay more attention to medical empathy and use context effects in the service of patients to the utmost. The subsequent opinion discusses the following after an introduction to medical history: the definition of CAM; the efficacy of most common CAM procedures; CAM utilisation and costs in Germany; characteristics of science-oriented medicine; awareness of placebo research; pro and contra arguments about the use of CAM, not least of all in terms of aspects related to medical ethics. German Medical Science GMS Publishing House 2015-06-23 /pmc/articles/PMC4480118/ /pubmed/26161049 http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/000209 Text en Copyright © 2015 Anlauf et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
spellingShingle Article
Anlauf, Manfred
Hein, Lutz
Hense, Hans-Werner
Köbberling, Johannes
Lasek, Rainer
Leidl, Reiner
Schöne-Seifert, Bettina
Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine
title Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine
title_full Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine
title_fullStr Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine
title_full_unstemmed Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine
title_short Complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine
title_sort complementary and alternative drug therapy versus science-oriented medicine
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4480118/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26161049
http://dx.doi.org/10.3205/000209
work_keys_str_mv AT anlaufmanfred complementaryandalternativedrugtherapyversusscienceorientedmedicine
AT heinlutz complementaryandalternativedrugtherapyversusscienceorientedmedicine
AT hensehanswerner complementaryandalternativedrugtherapyversusscienceorientedmedicine
AT kobberlingjohannes complementaryandalternativedrugtherapyversusscienceorientedmedicine
AT lasekrainer complementaryandalternativedrugtherapyversusscienceorientedmedicine
AT leidlreiner complementaryandalternativedrugtherapyversusscienceorientedmedicine
AT schoneseifertbettina complementaryandalternativedrugtherapyversusscienceorientedmedicine