Reflexology for acute rhinosinusitis - Results from a blinded, early-phase comparative trial.

BACKGROUND: Reflexology is commonly used as an adjunct to conventional treatment by patients with respiratory tract infections. The effect of reflexology needs to be tested in a full-scale randomized controlled study. Small early-phase trials can give an indication on whether full-size clinical trials are warranted. The objective of this study is to determine whether the study design is feasible in a full-scale study of reflexology as an add-on to usual care compared to usual care alone in acute rhinosinusitis, and further if there is a statistical indication of an effect of reflexology warranting a full-scale study. METHODS: 20 patients with symptoms compatible with acute rhinosinusitis, and an illness duration of 28 days or less were randomized to additional reflexology treatment along with usual medical care, or usual care alone. The patients scored how much each of 16 sinus-related symptoms bothered them in the past few days on a six-point scale (zero = no problem to five = severe problem). To determine if there is a statistical indication of an effect of reflexology warranting a full-scale study, the separation test was used. RESULTS: The methodology was considered feasible and could therefore be applied in a full-scale study of reflexology for acute rhinosinusitis. The mean reduction in symptom score from baseline to day two was 0.95 in the reflexology group and 0.78 in the control group. From baseline to day ten the mean reduction in symptom score was 2.12 in the reflexology group and 1.63 in the control group. A statistical indication of effect in a full-scale study in favor of reflexology was found from baseline to day ten but not from baseline to day two. CONCLUSIONS: The research methodology in this study could be used in a full-scale study of reflexology in acute sinusitis. The results from the separation test indicates an effect warranting a full-scale study of reflexology regarding effects in acute sinusitis ten days after treatment.

Correction to: Complementary and alternative medicine for treatment of atopic eczema in children under 14 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

ᅟ.

Complementary and alternative medicine for treatment of atopic eczema in children under 14 years old: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Due to limitations of conventional medicine for atopic eczema (AE), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used as an alternative, maintaining, or simultaneous treatment for AE. We aimed to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of CAM for children with AE under 14 years old. METHODS: We searched for randomized trials on CAM in 12 Chinese and English databases from their inception to May 2018. We included children (< 14 years) diagnosed with AE, who received CAM therapy alone or combined with conventional medicine. We extracted data, and used the Cochrane "Risk of bias" tool to assess methodological quality. Effect was presented as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using RevMan 5.3. RESULTS: Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 2233 children with AE were included. Methodological quality was of unclear or high risk of bias in general. The trials tested 5 different types of CAM therapies, including probiotics, diet, biofilm, borage oil, and swimming. Compared to placebo, probiotics showed improved effect for the SCORAD index (MD 9.01, 95% CI 7.12-10.90; n = 5). For symptoms and signs such as itching, skin lesions, CAM combined with usual care was more effective for symptom relief ≥95% (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30-1.68; n = 8), and for ≥50% symptoms improvement (RR 1.34, 1.25-1.45; n = 9) compared to usual care. There was no statistic significant difference between CAM and usual care on ≥95% improvement or ≥ 50% improvement of symptoms. However, swimming, diet and biofilm showed improvement of clinical symptoms compared with usual care. At follow-up of 8 weeks to 3 years, CAM alone or combined with usual care showed lower relapse rate (RR 0.38, 0.28-0.51, n = 2; RR 0.31, 0.24-0.40, n = 7; respectively) compared to usual care. Twelve out of 24 trials reported no occurrence of severe adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Low evidence demonstrates that some CAM modalities may improve symptoms of childhood AE and reduce relapse rate. Safety remains unclear due to insufficient reporting. Further well-designed randomized trials are needed to confirm the potential beneficial effect and to establish safety use.

Prevalence and reasons for intentional use of complementary and alternative medicine as an adjunct to future visits to a medical doctor for chronic disease.

BACKGROUND: Intentional use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has previously only been researched in small, possibly biased, samples. There seems to be a lack of scientific information regarding healthy individual's attitudes and presumed use of CAM. The aim of this study is to describe prevalence and characteristics of participants who intend to see a CAM provider compared to participants who intend to see a medical doctor (MD) only when suffering from a chronic, non- life-threatening disease and in the need of treatment. Further to describe differences between the groups regarding expected reasons for CAM use and expected skills of CAM providers. METHOD: The survey was conducted in January 2016 as part of the "TNS Gallup Health policy Barometer". In total, 1728 individuals aged 16-92 years participated in the study, constituting an overall response rate of 47%. The survey included questions regarding opinions and attitudes towards health, health services and health politics in Norway. RESULTS: The majority of the participants (90.2%) would see a MD only if they were suffering from a chronic, non- life-threatening disease and were in the need of treatment. Men over the age of 60 with a university education tended to see a MD only. Only 9.8% of all respondents would in addition visit a CAM provider. Being an intentional user of a MD + CAM provider was associated with being a woman under the age of 60. The respondents believed that CAM providers have professional competence based on formal training in CAM. They also believed that individuals seeing a CAM provider have poor health and are driven by the hope of being cured. Further, that they have heard that others have good experience with such treatment. CONCLUSION: Intentional use of CAM is associated with positive attitudes, trustworthiness, and presumed positive experiences in the CAM-patient-setting. Intentional CAM users also have the impression that CAM providers have professional competence based on formal training in alternative therapies.

Which risk understandings can be derived from the current disharmonized regulation of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe?

BACKGROUND: Many European citizens are seeking complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). These treatments are regulated very differently in the EU/EFTA countries. This may demonstrate differences in how risk associated with the use of CAM is perceived. Since most CAM treatments are practiced fairly similarly across Europe, differing risk understandings may influence patient safety for European CAM users. The overall aim of this article is thus to contribute to an overview and awareness of possible differing risk understandings in the field of CAM at a policymaking/structural level in Europe. METHODS: The study is a re-analysis of data collected in the CAMbrella EU FP7 document and interview study on the regulation of CAM in 39 European countries. The 12 CAM modalities included in the CAMbrella study were ranked with regard to assumed risk potential depending on the number of countries limiting its practice to regulated professions. The 39 countries were ranked according to how many of the included CAM modalities they limit to be practiced by regulated professions. RESULTS: Twelve of 39 countries generally understand the included CAM treatments to represent "high risk", 20 countries "low risk", while the remaining 7 countries understand CAM treatments as carrying "very little or no risk". The CAM modalities seen as carrying a risk high enough to warrant professional regulation in the highest number of countries are chiropractic, acupuncture, massage, homeopathy and osteopathy. The countries understanding most of the CAM modalities in the study as potentially high-risk treatments are with two exceptions (Portugal and Belgium) all concentrated in the southeastern region of Europe. CONCLUSION: The variation in regulation of CAM may represent a substantial lack of common risk understandings between health policymakers in Europe. We think the discrepancies in regulation are to a considerable degree also based on factors unrelated to patient risk. We argue that it is important for patient safety that policy makers across Europe address this confusing situation. This could be done by applying the WHO patient safety definitions and EU's policy to facilitate access to "safe and high-quality healthcare", and regulate CAM accordingly.

[A research roadmap for complementary and alternative medicine - what we need to know by 2020].

BACKGROUND: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella's several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. METHODS: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7­9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9­11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella's scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. RESULTS: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens' needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. CONCLUSIONS: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens' attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EU-wide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe's reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research.

The use of complementary and alternative Medicine (CAM) has increased over the past two decades in Europe. Nonetheless, research investigating the evidence to support its use remains limited. The CAMbrella project funded by the European Commission aimed to develop a strategic research agenda starting by systematically evaluating the state of CAM in the EU. CAMbrella involved 9 work packages covering issues such as the definition of CAM; its legal status, provision and use in the EU; and a synthesis of international research perspectives. Based on the work package reports, we developed a strategic and methodologically robust research roadmap based on expert workshops, a systematic Delphi-based process and a final consensus conference. The CAMbrella project suggests six core areas for research to examine the potential contribution of CAM to the health care challenges faced by the EU. These areas include evaluating the prevalence of CAM use in Europe; the EU cititzens' needs and attitudes regarding CAM; the safety of CAM; the comparative effectiveness of CAM; the effects of meaning and context on CAM outcomes; and different models for integrating CAM into existing health care systems. CAM research should use methods generally accepted in the evaluation of health services, including comparative effectiveness studies and mixed-methods designs. A research strategy is urgently needed, ideally led by a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to fostering systematic communication between EU governments, the public, charitable and industry funders, researchers and other stakeholders. A European Centre for CAM should also be established to monitor and further a coordinated research strategy with sufficient funds to commission and promote high quality, independent research focusing on the public's health needs and pan-European collaboration. There is a disparity between highly prevalent use of CAM in Europe and solid knowledge about it. A strategic approach on CAM research should be established to investigate the identified gaps of knowledge and to address upcoming health care challenges.

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use among Norwegian Cancer Survivors: Gender-Specific Prevalence and Associations for Use.

The associations for CAM use are only occasionally differentiated by gender in populations where both male and female cancer survivors occur. The aim of this study is to describe the prevalence of CAM use in individuals with a previous cancer diagnosis and to investigate gender differences regard to factors associated with use. A total of 12982 men and women filled in a questionnaire with questions about life style and health issues. Eight hundred of those had a previous cancer diagnosis of whom 630 answered three questions concerning CAM use in the last 12 months. A total of 33.8% of all cancer survivors reported CAM use, 39.4% of the women and 27.9% of the men (P < 0.01). The relationship between the demographic variables and being a CAM user differed significantly between men and women with regard to age (P = 0.03), education (P = 0.04), and income (P < 0.01). Female CAM users were more likely to have a university degree than the nonusers, while male CAM users were more likely to have a lower income than the nonusers. According to this study, prevalence and factors associated with CAM use differ significantly between male and female survivors of cancer.

Any difference? Use of a CAM provider among cancer patients, coronary heart disease (CHD) patients and individuals with no cancer/CHD.

BACKGROUND: Although use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) among cancer patients has been described previously, prevalence of use has not commonly been compared to other disease groups in a true population sample where CAM use or cancer is not the main focus. The aims of the present study are to (1) examine how CAM use in cancer patients differs from people with a previous CHD diagnosis and people with no cancer or CHD diagnosis in an unselected general population and (2), investigate the use of a CAM provider among individuals with a previous cancer diagnosis. METHODS: A total of 8040 men and women aged 29 to 87 in the city of Tromsø, Norway filled in a questionnaire developed specifically for the Tromsø V study with questions on life style and health issues. Visits to a CAM provider within the last 12 months and information on cancer, heart attack and angina pectoris (heart cramp) were among the questions. 1449 respondents were excluded from the analyses. RESULTS: Among the 6591 analysed respondents 331 had a prior cancer diagnosis, of whom 7.9% reported to have seen a CAM provider within the last 12 months. This did not differ significantly from neither the CHD group (6.4%, p = 0.402) nor the no cancer/CHD group (9.5%, p = 0.325). CONCLUSION: According to this study, the proportion of cancer patients seeing a CAM provider was not statistically significantly different from patients with CHD or individuals without cancer or CHD.

A systematic literature review of complementary and alternative medicine prevalence in EU.

BACKGROUND: Studies suggest that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used in the European Union (EU). We systematically reviewed data, reporting research quality and the prevalence of CAM use by citizens in Europe; what it is used for, and why. METHODS: We searched for general population surveys of CAM use by using Ovid MEDLINE (1948 to September 2010), Cochrane Library (1989 to September 2010), CINAHL (1989 to September 2010), EMBASE (1980 to September 2010), PsychINFO including PsychARTICLES (1989 to September 2010), Web of Science (1989 to September 2010), AMED (1985 to September 2010), and CISCOM (1989 to September 2010). Additional studies were identified through experts and grey literature. Cross-sectional, population-based or cohort studies reporting CAM use in any EU language were included. Data were extracted and reviewed by 2 authors using a pre-designed extraction protocol with quality assessment instrument. RESULTS: 87 studies were included. Inter-rater reliability was good (kappa = 0.8). Study methodology and quality of reporting were poor. The prevalence of CAM use varied widely within and across EU countries (0.3-86%). Prevalence data demonstrated substantial heterogeneity unrelated to report quality; therefore, we were unable to pool data for meta-analysis; our report is narrative and based on descriptive statistics. Herbal medicine was most commonly reported. CAM users were mainly women. The most common reason for use was dissatisfaction with conventional care; CAM was widely used for musculoskeletal problems. CONCLUSION: CAM prevalence across the EU is problematic to estimate because studies are generally poor and heterogeneous. A consistent definition of CAM, a core set of CAMs with country-specific variations and a standardised reporting strategy to enhance the accuracy of data pooling would improve reporting quality.

Legal status and regulation of complementary and alternative medicine in Europe.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to review the legal and regulatory status of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) in the 27 European Union (EU) member states and 12 associated states, and at the EU/European Economic Association (EEA) level. METHODS: Contact was established with national Ministries of Health, Law or Education, members of national and European CAM associations, and CAMbrella partners. A literature search was performed in governmental and scientific/non-scientific websites as well as the EUROPA and EUR-lex websites/ databases to identify documents describing national CAM regulation and official EU law documents. RESULTS: The 39 nations have all structured legislation and regulation differently: 17 have a general CAM legislation, 11 of these have a specific CAM law, and 6 have sections on CAM included in their general healthcare laws. Some countries only regulate specific CAM treatments. CAM medicinal products are subject to the same market authorization procedures as other medicinal products with the possible exception of documentation of efficacy. The directives, regulations and resolutions in the EU that may influence the professional practice of CAM will also affect the conditions under which patients are receiving CAM treatment(s) in Europe. CONCLUSION: There is an extraordinary diversity with regard to the regulation of CAM practice, but not CAM medicinal products. This will influence patients, practitioners and researchers when crossing European borders. Voluntary harmonization is possible within current legislation. Individual states within culturally similar regions should harmonize their CAM legislation and regulation. This can probably safeguard against inadequately justified over- or underregulation at the national level.

Key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in complementary and alternative medicine--a systematic literature review.

BACKGROUND: In the last 2 decades there has been a large increase in publications on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, CAM research methodology was heterogeneous and often of low quality. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate scientific publications with regards to general issues, concepts and strategies. We also looked at research priorities and methods employed to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological research of CAM in the past to identify the basis for consensus-based research strategies. METHODS: We performed a systematic literature search for papers published between 1990 and 2010 in 7 electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, PsychArticles, PsycInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) on December 16 and 17, 2010. In addition, experts were asked to nominate relevant papers. Inclusion criteria were publications dealing with research methodology, priorities or complexities in the scientific evaluation of CAM. All references were assessed in a multistage process to identify relevant papers. RESULTS: From the 3,279 references derived from the search and 98 references contributed by CAM experts, 170 papers fulfilled the criteria and were included in the analysis. The following key issues were identified: difficulties in past CAM research (e.g., randomisation, blinding), utility of quantitative and qualitative research methods in CAM, priority setting in CAM research and specific issues regarding various CAM modalities. CONCLUSIONS: Most authors vote for the use of commonly accepted research methods to evaluate CAM. There was broad consensus that a mixed methods approach is the most suitable for gathering conclusive knowledge about CAM.

International development of traditional medicine / complementary and alternative medicine research--what can Europe learn?

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to analyse global research and development (R&D) strategies for traditional medicine (TM) and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) across the world to learn from previous and on-going activities. METHODS: 52 representatives within CAMbrella nominated 43 key international stakeholders (individuals and organisations) and 15 of these were prioritised. Information from policy documents including mission statements, R&D strategies and R&D activities were collected in combination with personal interviews. Data were analysed using the principles of content analysis. RESULTS: Key stakeholders vary greatly in terms of capacity, mission and funding source (private/public). They ranged from only providing research funding to having a comprehensive R&D and communication agenda. A common shift in R&D strategy was noted; whereas 10 years ago research focused mainly on exploring efficacy and mechanisms, today the majority of stakeholders emphasise the importance of a broad spectrum of research, including methodologies exploring context, safety and comparative effectiveness. CONCLUSION: The scarce public investment in this field in Europe stands in stark contrast to the large investments found in Australia, Asia and North America. There is an emerging global trend supporting a broad research repertoire, including qualitative and comparative effectiveness research. This trend should be considered by the EU given the experience and the substantial research funding committed by the included stakeholders. To facilitate international collaborative efforts and minimise the risk of investment failure, we recommend the formation of a centralised EU CAM research centre fostering a broad CAM R&D agenda with the responsibility for implementing the relevant findings of CAMbrella.

A pilot feasibility study of a questionnaire to determine European Union-wide CAM use.

BACKGROUND: No questionnaire specifically measuring the core components of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use has been validated for use across European Union (EU) countries. We aimed to determine the face validity, acceptability and the participants' comprehension of a pre-existing questionnaire designed to measure 'CAM use', to provide a comparative, standardised questionnaire for use by health care providers, policy makers and purchasers throughout Europe. METHODS: Established procedures were employed to translate the questionnaire into 4 EU languages. The translated questionnaires were piloted on 50 healthy adults from each country who may never have used CAM. 10 participants per country also took part in audio-recorded think aloud interviews about the questionnaire. The interviews were transcribed and analysed in the language in which they were conducted; findings were summarised in English. Questionnaire data were pooled across countries, and patterns of completion and missing data were analysed. RESULTS: The questionnaire was translated into Italian, Spanish, Dutch and Romanian. The mean age of the participants was 43.6 years. 34% were male, 87.4% were either light or heavy CAM users, and 12.6% were non-users. Qualitative analysis identified common problems across countries including a 'hard-to-read' layout, misunderstood terminology and uncertainty in choosing response options. Quantitative analysis confirmed that a substantial minority of respondents failed to follow questionnaire instructions and that some questions had substantial rates of missing data. CONCLUSIONS: The I-CAM-Q has low face validity and low acceptability, and is likely to produce biased estimates of CAM use if applied in England, Romania, Italy, The Netherlands or Spain. Further work is required to develop the layout, terms, some response options and instructions for completion before it can be used across the EU.

A Patient-defined "Best Case" of Multiple Sclerosis Related to the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

Chronically ill people are frequent users of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Some patients experience great benefits from their use of CAM, like patient "XX" in this case report. XX was diagnosed with secondary progressive multiple sclerosis in 2004 and has reported a "best case" after the use of Dr Birgitta Brunes' unconventional treatment. The patient reports that many of her symptoms that, according to her neurologist, were irreversible are gone or have been greatly reduced. Such patient-defined "best cases" related to the use of CAM should be further explored to optimize and safeguard patients' treatment decisions and treatment outcomes.

Las personas que padecen enfermedades crónicas son usuarios frecuentes de la medicina complementaria y alternativa (CMA, por sus siglas en inglés). Algunos pacientes experimentan grandes beneficios a partir del uso de CAM, como es el caso de la paciente "XX" que se analiza en este caso clínico. Dicha paciente fue diagnosticada con esclerosis múltiple secundaria progresiva en el año 2004 y fue registrada como el "mejor caso", luego de recibir el tratamiento no convencional de la Dra. Birgitta Brunes. La paciente reconoció que muchos de sus síntomas, que según su neurólogo eran irreversibles, desaparecieron o se redujeron en gran medida. Dicha paciente, catalogada como el "mejor caso" relacionado con el uso de CAM, debe ser sujeta a análisis más profundos para optimizar y resguardar las decisiones que toman los pacientes sobre el tratamiento y los resultados del mismo.

The NAFKAM International Registry of Exceptional Courses of Disease Related to the Use of Complementary and Alternative Medicine.

The increasing use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) represents a continuing demand for treatment approaches in parallel with, or as an alternative to, conventional healthcare delivery.(1,2) Some patients report considerable health improvements related to their use of CAM,(3-6) and others report no effect or possibly harm.(7) Limited efforts have been made so far to systematically collect patients' personal experiences with various CAM therapies. Methods to collect "best cases" after the use of CAM in cancer patients have been initiated in the United States and Germany.(5,8,9.)

Traditional Chinese medicine in cancer care: a review of case reports published in Chinese literature.

BACKGROUND: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is widely used for cancer treatment in China. Many support its use in treatment for cancer, yet scientific evidence for the effect of TCM needs to be established. MATERIAL AND METHODS: In this review case reports on cancer patients treated by TCM therapies are included. Search runs were conducted in 4 main Chinese databases till December 2009. RESULTS: A total of 716 reports involving 1,198 cancer patients were identified and summarized. Top 5 of the reported cancers treated with TCM were lung cancer (14.44%; 173 patients), leukemia (14.11%; 169 patients), stomach cancer (10.85%; 130 patients), liver cancer (10.18%; 122 patients) and esophageal cancer (7.35%; 88 patients). In the majority of cases (66.44%; 772) combined treatments of Chinese and conventional medicine were applied. The use of herbal medicine was highly prevalent (98.50%; 1,168 patients), and the typical administration was an individually tailored treatment according to the pattern differentiation of symptoms (74.21%; 889 patients); the use of acupuncture was relatively rare (1.8%; 22 patients). Symptom improvement was the most frequently reported outcome (84.72%; 1,015 patients). Only 15 studies (2.1%) were structurally reported. Detailed information on patients' demography, pathologically confirmed diagnosis and safety was given in 275 (22.95%), 692 (57.76%) and 10 (0.83%) reports, respectively. CONCLUSION: The amount of information from case reports of TCM therapies in cancer is rich and can be valuable for the preliminary evaluation of TCM and for the planning of further clinical trials in cancer treatment. However, the quality of the reports was generally poor and we recommend that case reports should be published in a structured manner.