Registered: Not Yet
Location:
Posts: N/A

The subject being explored by this THREAD, is: Should CAM be subjected
to the same standard of evidence as Allopathic research?

Quoting from the Discussion section of a full text research study in
the NEJM, I shall quote directly as follows.

NEJM Volume 341:1426-1431 November 4, 1999 Number 19
A Comparison of Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation with Standard Care for
Patients with Low Back Pain
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/341/19/1426

"We decided against using a placebo or nontreatment group because it is
not possible to prevent patients with back pain from initiating
self-care (by adjustment of activity and use of pain medication). ...

Koes et al.6,24 developed criteria for assessing the quality of
published studies of the efficacy of spinal manipulation. When those
criteria were applied to our study, the study scored between 66 points
(with the 1991 criteria) and 74 points (with the 1995 criteria) out of
a possible 100. This compares favorably with the 30 trials of spinal
manipulation or mobilization reviewed by Koes et al.,6 in which scores
ranged from 20 to 56, with a median of 35. It also compares well with
the 25 controlled trials of manipulation that were accepted for review
by Shekelle et al.8 The main areas of methodologic weakness in our
study, according to the criteria of Koes et al.,6 were the size of the
study groups (72 in the smaller group, as compared with an ideal size
of more than 100), the presence of other interventions, the lack of a
placebo control group, and the lack of blinding of the patients. These
four items constitute 24 points deducted from 100. Although rectifying
these deficiencies would increase the value of a study from a
methodologic perspective, we did not consider these items essential for
addressing our hypothesis."

The US Preventive Services Task Force has previously determined the
hierarchy of quality of evidence, in reference to evidence-based
medicine (EBM).
http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/ajpmsuppl/harris1.htm

So, my question is this: Does this NEJM CAM research study qualify as
EBM hierarchy of quality of evidence levels 1 or 2?

If NOT, then why NOT?

It is clear to me that this whole evidence-based medicine quality of
evidence nonsense is clearly designed to test the effectiveness of
prescription drug medicine. And, it is also equally clear to me that a
large part of CAM is about non-drug forms of therapy which obviously
should NOT be subjected to methodology that is clearly designed for
drug medication testing.

Ergo, I conclude that anybody who says that this published NEJM CAM
research study does not qualify as EBM is a science bigot, plain and
simple, unless they can come up with an objective explanation as to why
they should not be so classified.

Medical research journals do not come finer than the NEJM. So, please
begin making a public fool of yourself by first attacking this NEJM
research methodology.
--
john gohde
http://naturalhealthperspective.com/blog/

Report this post to a moderator | IP: Logged