{"title":"Research into complementary and alternative medicine across Europe and the United States.","authors":"P Giovannini, K Schmidt, P H Canter, E Ernst","doi":"10.1159/000080558","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>There has been an increase in complementary/ alternative medicine (CAM) research with a wide range of perspectives.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To capture and analyse the diversity of CAM research across 7 European countries (Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium) and the US. We were predominantly interested in finding out how CAM research differs between countries.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>A systematic review of CAM literature published in 2002 and included in Medline, Embase, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBBS) and PsycLit. OUTCOME CRITERIA: Data were extracted regarding country of origin, type of methodology, type of research question, CAM modality, direction of conclusion, setting and type of journal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total 652 abstracts of articles were assessed (Germany: 137, UK: 183, Italy: 39, France: 47, Spain: 24, Netherlands: 17, Belgium: 22, US: 183). The vast majority of CAM research was of a medical nature and published in medical journals. The majority of articles were nonsystematic reviews and comments, analytical studies and surveys. The UK carried out more surveys than any of the other countries and also published the largest number of systematic reviews. Germany, the UK and the US covered the widest range of interests across various CAM modalities and investigated the safety of CAM.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our data suggest that important national differences exist in terms of the nature of CAM research. This raises important questions regarding the reasons for such differences.</p>","PeriodicalId":80278,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde = Research in complementary and natural classical medicine","volume":"11 4","pages":"224-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2004-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000080558","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin und klassische Naturheilkunde = Research in complementary and natural classical medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000080558","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8
Abstract
Background: There has been an increase in complementary/ alternative medicine (CAM) research with a wide range of perspectives.
Objective: To capture and analyse the diversity of CAM research across 7 European countries (Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, France, Spain, Netherlands, Belgium) and the US. We were predominantly interested in finding out how CAM research differs between countries.
Study design: A systematic review of CAM literature published in 2002 and included in Medline, Embase, International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBBS) and PsycLit. OUTCOME CRITERIA: Data were extracted regarding country of origin, type of methodology, type of research question, CAM modality, direction of conclusion, setting and type of journal.
Results: In total 652 abstracts of articles were assessed (Germany: 137, UK: 183, Italy: 39, France: 47, Spain: 24, Netherlands: 17, Belgium: 22, US: 183). The vast majority of CAM research was of a medical nature and published in medical journals. The majority of articles were nonsystematic reviews and comments, analytical studies and surveys. The UK carried out more surveys than any of the other countries and also published the largest number of systematic reviews. Germany, the UK and the US covered the widest range of interests across various CAM modalities and investigated the safety of CAM.
Conclusion: Our data suggest that important national differences exist in terms of the nature of CAM research. This raises important questions regarding the reasons for such differences.
背景:补充/替代医学(CAM)的研究越来越多,具有广泛的视角。目的:捕捉和分析7个欧洲国家(德国、英国、意大利、法国、西班牙、荷兰、比利时)和美国CAM研究的多样性。我们主要感兴趣的是找出CAM研究在不同国家之间的差异。研究设计:对2002年发表的CAM文献进行系统回顾,包括Medline, Embase, International Bibliography of Social Sciences (IBBS)和PsycLit。结果标准:提取的数据包括原产国、方法类型、研究问题类型、CAM模式、结论方向、环境和期刊类型。结果:共纳入文献摘要652篇(德国137篇,英国183篇,意大利39篇,法国47篇,西班牙24篇,荷兰17篇,比利时22篇,美国183篇)。绝大多数CAM研究属于医学性质,并发表在医学期刊上。文章以非系统综述和评论、分析研究和调查为主。英国开展的调查比其他任何国家都多,发表的系统评论也最多。德国、英国和美国涵盖了各种CAM模式的最广泛利益,并调查了CAM的安全性。结论:我们的数据表明,在CAM研究的性质方面存在着重要的国家差异。这就提出了有关这种差异的原因的重要问题。