RSM logo
JRSM

Home Current issue Browse archive Alerts About the journal Feedback
 
J R Soc Med 2001;94:608
© 2001 Royal Society of Medicine

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Melchart, D
Right arrow Articles by Ernst, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
J R Soc Med 2001;94:608
© 2001 The Royal Society of Medicine

Priorities for research in complementary medicine

D Melchart1   E Ernst2

1 Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, II, Department of Internal Medicine, Technical University of Munich, Kaisterstr. 9, D-80801 München, Germany
2 Department of Complementary Medicine, School of Postgraduate Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter, Devon EX2 4NT, UK

The House of Lords' report on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) recommends that adequate research funds for CAM should be created in the UK. This raises the question about research priorities in this area. In 1996, we reported a (1995) survey of CAM researchers' views on this matter1. The same survey instrument was used again in 2000, at another international conference on CAM research (Evidence-based Complementary Medicine—State of the Evidence, Methodological Challenges, Technische Universität, Munich, April 2000). Table 1 shows the three answers with the highest level of priority in both years. The remarkable stability of these results over 5 years suggests that assessment of efficacy and safety as well as development of research tools are true priorities for CAM research of the future.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Survey responses

 

REFERENCES

  1. Ernst E, Abbot NC. Research priorities in complementary medicine. BMJ1996; 312:1481 -2[Free Full Text]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?



This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Send a Quick Comment
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Quick Comments are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Melchart, D
Right arrow Articles by Ernst, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?


 BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics RSM Press eJournals Collection 2010