What Level of Evidence is Required in Conventional Medicine?
There is, to some extent a confidence that Evidence Based Medicine is an all encompassing component of medical care. Certainly it is a position that all practitioners and clinicians would feel a high level of confidence about their daily work if this was true. The CAM community is frequently accused of pursuing strategies that have no, or at best a controversial evidence basis. This in part is true, there are many proposed reasons why including of course financial ones.
There is much to be done to clarify the role of CAM in human health, but there also remains much to be done to clarify the role of conventional medicine. This was explored in an editorial by the BMJ Clinical Evidence Journal where they also provide a definition of the descriptors: Beneficial:Harmful.
They found that of about 2,500 treatments offered in conventional medicine:
- 13 percent are beneficial to the patient
- 23 percent are likely to be beneficial
- 8 percent is a trade-off between benefits and harm
- 6 percent are unlikely to be beneficial
- 4 percent are likely to be ineffective or harmful
- 46 percent have unknown effectiveness
States BMJ: “…the figures above suggest that the research community has a large task ahead and that most decisions about treatments still rest on the individual judgments of clinicians and patients.
Related articles:
- Trials of complementary and alternative medicine may not sway many clinicians
- Is docosahexaenoic acid, an n–3 long-chain polyunsaturated fatty acid, required for development of normal brain function? An overview of evidence from cognitive and behavioural tests in humans and animals
- Increased defense with dairy
- Clinical evidence for immunomodulatory effects of probiotic bacteria.
- Drug Discovery and Development: Traditional Medicine and Ethnopharmacology Perspectives
Keywords:CAM, evidence, ineffective, medicine
If you found this post interesting, please share it, leave a comment or subscribe to the RSS feed and get future posts delivered to your feed reader.
Leave Comment
You can ask technical questions, be as supportive, critical or controversial as you like, but please don't get personal or offensive, and do keep it brief. Your comments will be published only after verification.
The immune system is prone to the same grave misfortunes as any defense system handling weapons: collateral damage that comes with the destruction of the enemy on one’s own territory and friendly fire due to mistaken identity. Whereas the collateral damage is the price we pay for clearance of infections, autoimmunity is a pathological process. Nevertheless, the effector mechanisms involved in both processes are the same. Whether environment can be a cause, a trigger or an amplifier of an autoimmune disease are questions that are being intensively investigated.
