Guttman, Jeremy
(2015)
CAN COMPLEMENTARY AND ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE BE EVALUATED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE?
Master's Thesis, University of Pittsburgh.
(Unpublished)
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: |
|
Details
| Item Type: |
University of Pittsburgh ETD
|
| Status: |
Unpublished |
| Creators/Authors: |
|
| ETD Committee: |
|
| 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 |
![[img]](http://d-scholarship.pitt.edu/style/images/fileicons/application_pdf.png)
![[feed]](/images/feed-icon-32x32.png){kind=icon}