Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
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 ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (2)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Ernst, E
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Ernst, E
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

International Journal of Epidemiology 2001;30:531-532
© International Epidemiological Association 2001

Theory and Methods

Commentary: Science friction—complementary/ alternative medicine on the stony road from opinion to evidence

E Ernst

Department of Complementary Medicine, School of Postgraduate Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, 25 Victoria Park Road, Exeter EX2 4NT, UK. E-mail: E.Ernst@ex.ac.uk

Linde and colleagues present an assessment of 207 randomized clinical trials (RCT) of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM) which points to ‘relevant methodological weaknesses’ in the evidence supporting CAM.1 Why is this important?

Complementary/alternative medicine is used by more and more people2 and continues to grow at a rate that sends a shiver down the spine of many scientifically-minded physicians. A US think-tank recently concluded that ‘by . . . [Full Text of this Article]

References


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?