Link to the University of Pittsburgh Homepage
Link to the University Library System Homepage Link to the Contact Us Form

CAN COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE BE EVALUATED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE?

Message

Note: This site will be unavailable for a couple hours for scheduled maintenance starting at 3:00 pm EST (UTC-5:00) on Friday, Jan. 28, 2022.

Guttman, Jeremy (2015) CAN COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE BE EVALUATED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE? Master's Thesis, University of Pittsburgh. (Unpublished)

[img]
Preview
PDF (JGuttman Bioethics Thesis 2014)
Primary Text

Download (391kB)

Abstract

There are many complications in fitting complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) into the hierarchy of evidence-based medicine, which favors “gold standard” RCTs and meta-analyses. Some argue that CAM practices that have been practiced for many years don’t need rigorous studies to verify them, or that the most rigorous scientific studies aren’t necessary as long as people get better. However, success over many years is not enough to validate a treatment. Also, pragmatic outcomes-focused arguments sidestep philosophical and scientific issues about whether the therapies “do anything” at all beyond non-specific and placebo effects. There are a number of reasons why randomization and placebo controls may not be appropriate to accurately study CAM therapies, such as studies where a subjects’ effects are dampened by the act of participating in a study, studies where a sham control is more effective than the best conventional treatment, or studies that miss important subsets. Some argue that CAM should meet the same high standards as conventional medicine. However, 1. This holds CAM to a double standard because most conventional medical practices have less-than-rigorous evidence to support them. 2. The gold standard inherent in the evidence-based medicine hierarchy is not always appropriate. 3. CAM resembles a scientific paradigm and it may not be possible for scientists in the current biomedical paradigm to understand and evaluate CAM. And 4. Even if CAM can be accommodated within the evidence-based medicine framework, the attitude and priorities of the evidence-based medicine movement are problematic. Less rigorous studies are not often considered to be acceptable types of evidence, and there are few financial incentives to study CAM treatments in a more focused manner.


Share

Citation/Export:
Social Networking:
Share |

Details

Item Type: University of Pittsburgh ETD
Status: Unpublished
Creators/Authors:
CreatorsEmailPitt UsernameORCID
Guttman, Jeremyjsg40@pitt.eduJSG40
ETD Committee:
TitleMemberEmail AddressPitt UsernameORCID
Committee ChairSchaffner, Kennethkfs123@gmail.com
Committee MemberGlick, Ronaldglickrm@upmc.eduGLICK
Committee MemberFischer, Garyfischerg@upmc.eduGAF1
Date: 9 January 2015
Date Type: Publication
Defense Date: 18 November 2014
Approval Date: 9 January 2015
Submission Date: 26 November 2014
Access Restriction: No restriction; Release the ETD for access worldwide immediately.
Number of Pages: 93
Institution: University of Pittsburgh
Schools and Programs: Dietrich School of Arts and Sciences > Bioethics
Degree: MA - Master of Arts
Thesis Type: Master's Thesis
Refereed: Yes
Uncontrolled Keywords: Complementary and Alternative Medicine, Evidence-Based Medicine, Medical Evidence, Medical Research, Alternative Medicine, Integrative Medicine, Clinical Trials, Randomization, Placebo Effect, Placebo-Controlled Trials, Mind-Body Connection, Acupuncture, Sham Acupuncture, Traditional Chinese Medicine, Philosophy of Medicine, Thomas Kuhn, Paradigms, Comparative Effectiveness, PCORI, Pragmatic Trials, Randomized Controlled Trials, EBM, EBM Hierarchy
Date Deposited: 09 Jan 2015 15:58
Last Modified: 19 Dec 2016 14:42
URI: http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/id/eprint/23700

Metrics

Monthly Views for the past 3 years

Plum Analytics


Actions (login required)

View Item View Item