MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

In a paper discussed in a previous blog, Ioannidis et al published a comprehensive database of a large number of scientists across science. They used Scopus data to compile a database of the 100,000 most-cited authors across all scientific fields based on their ranking of a composite indicator that considers six citation metrics (total citations; Hirsch h-index; coauthorship-adjusted Schreiber hm-index; number of citations to papers as single author; number of citations to papers as single or first author; and number of citations to papers as single, first, or last author). The authors also added this caution:

Citation analyses for individuals are used for various single-person or comparative assessments in the complex reward and incentive system of science. Misuse of citation metrics in hiring, promotion or tenure decision, or other situations involving rewards (e.g., funding or awards) takes many forms, including but not limited to the use of metrics that are not very informative for scientists and their work (e.g., journal impact factors); focus on single citation metrics (e.g., h-index); and use of calculations that are not standardized, use different frames, and do not account for field. The availability of the data sets that we provide should help mitigate many of these problems. The database can also be used to perform evaluations of groups of individuals, e.g., at the level of scientific fields, institutions, countries, or memberships in diversely defined groups that may be of interest to users.

It seems thus obvious and relevant to employ the new metrics for defining the most ‘influential’ (most frequently cited) researchers in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). Doing this creates not one but two non-overlapping tables (because ‘complementary&alternative medicine’ is listed both as a primary and a secondary field (not sure about the difference)). Below, I have copied a small part of these tables; the first three columns are self-explanatory; the 4th relates to the number of published articles, the 4th to the year of the author’s first publication, the 5th to the last, the 6th column is the rank amongst 100 000 scientists of all fields who have published more than a couple of papers.

TABLE 1

Ernst, E. University of Exeter gbr 2253 1975 2018 104
Davidson, Jonathan R. T. Duke University usa 426 1972 2017 1394
Kaptchuk, Ted J. Harvard University usa 245 1993 2018 6545
Eisenberg, David M. Harvard University usa 127 1991 2018 8641
Lundeberg, Thomas 340 1983 2016 17199
Linde, Klaus Technische Universitat Munchen deu 276 1993 2018 19488
Schwartz, Gary E. University of Arizona usa 264 1967 2018 21893
Eloff, J.N. University of Pretoria zaf 204 1997 2018 23830
Birch, Stephen McMaster University can 244 1985 2018 31925
Wilson, Kenneth H. Duke University usa 76 1976 2017 40760
Kemper, Kathi J. Ohio State University usa 181 1988 2017 45193
Oken, Barry S. Oregon Health and Science University usa 121 1974 2018 51325
Pittler, M.H. 155 1997 2016 53183
Postuma, Ronald B. McGill University can 159 1998 2018 61018
Patwardhan, Bhushan University of Pune ind 144 1989 2018 64465
Krucoff, Mitchell W. Duke University usa 261 1986 2016 66028
Chiesa, Alberto 87 1973 2017 82390
Baliga, Manjeshwar Shrinath 142 2002 2018 83030
Mischoulon, David Harvard University usa 194 1992 2018 91705
Büssing, Arndt University of Witten/Herdecke deu 207 1980 2018 95907
Langevin, Helene M. Harvard University usa 67 1999 2018 98290
Creath, Katherine 84 1984 2017 99709
Kuete, Victor University of Dschang cmr 239 2005 2018 128347

TABLE 2

White, Adrian University of Plymouth gbr 294 1990 2016 16714
Astin, John A. California Pacific Medical Center usa 50 1994 2014 21379
Kelly, Gregory S. 37 1985 2011 31037
Walach, Harald University of Medical Sciences Poznan pol 246 1996 2018 31716
Berman, Brian M. University of Maryland School of Medicine usa 211 1986 2018 34022
Lewith, George University of Southampton gbr 380 1980 2018 34830
Kidd, Parris M. University of California at Berkeley usa 38 1976 2011 36571
Jonas, Wayne B. 187 1992 2018 42445
MacPherson, Hugh University of York gbr 143 1996 2018 49923
Bell, Iris R. University of Arizona usa 142 1984 2015 51016
Patrick, Lyn 21 1999 2018 57086
Ritenbaugh, Cheryl University of Arizona usa 172 1981 2018 63248
Boon, Heather University of Toronto can 188 1988 2017 69066
Aickin, Mikel University of Arizona usa 149 1996 2014 72040
Lee, Myeong Soo 430 1996 2018 72358
Lao, Lixing University of Hong Kong hkg 247 1990 2018 74896
Witt, Claudia M. Charite – Universitatsmedizin Berlin deu 238 2001 2018 78849
Sherman, Karen J. 136 1984 2017 82542
Verhoef, Marja J. University of Calgary can 190 1989 2016 84314
Smith, Caroline A. University of Western Sydney aus 135 1979 2018 94130
Miller, Alan L. 30 1980 2016 94421
Paterson, Charlotte University of Bristol gbr 71 1995 2017 95130
Milgrom, Lionel R. London Metropolitan University gbr 107 1979 2017 112943
Adams, Jon University of Technology NSW aus 294 1999 2018 128486
Litscher, Gerhard Medical University of Graz aut 245 1986 2018 133122
Chen, Calvin Yu-Chian China Medical University Taichung chn 130 2007 2016 164522

No other researchers are listed in the ‘Complementary&Alternative Medicine’ categories and made it into the list of the 100 000 most-cited scientists.

To make this easier to read, I have ordered all SCAM researchers according to their rank in one single list and, where known to me, added the respective focus in SCAM research (ma = most areas of SCAM):

  1. ERNST EDZARD (ma)
  2. DONALDSON JONATHAN
  3. KAPTCHUK TED (acupuncture)
  4. EISENBERG DAVID (TCM)
  5. WHITE ADRIAN (acupuncture)
  6. LUNDEBERG THOMAS (acupuncture)
  7. LINDE KLAUS (homeopathy)
  8. ASTIN JOHN (mind/body)
  9. SCHWARTZ GARRY (healing)
  10. ELOFF JN
  11. KELLY GREGORY
  12. WALLACH HARALD (homeopathy)
  13. BIRCH STEVEN (acupuncture)
  14. BERMAN BRIAN (acupuncture)
  15. LEWITH GEORGE (acupuncture)
  16. KIDD PARRIS
  17. WILSON KENNETH
  18. JONAS WAYNE (homeopathy)
  19. KEMPER KATHIE (ma)
  20. MACPHERSON HUGH (acupuncture)
  21. BELL IRIS (homeopathy)
  22. OKEN BARRY (dietary supplements)
  23. PITTLER MAX (ma)
  24. PATRICK LYN
  25. RITENBAUGH CHERYL (ma)
  26. POSTUMA RONALD
  27. PATWARDHAN BHUSHAN
  28. KRUCOFF MICHELL
  29. BOON HEATHER
  30. AICKIN MIKEL (ma)
  31. LEE MYEONG SOO (TCM)
  32. LAO LIXING (acupuncture)
  33. WITT CLAUDIA (ma)
  34. CHIESA ALBERTO
  35. SHERMAN KAREN (acupuncture)
  36. BALIGA MANJESHWAR
  37. VERHOEF MARIA (ma)
  38. MISCHOULON DAVID
  39. SMITH CAROLINE (acupuncture)
  40. MILLER ALAN
  41. PATERSON CHARLOTTE (ma)
  42. BUESSING ARNDT (anthroposophical medicine)
  43. LANGEVIN HELENE (ma)
  44. CREATH KATHERINE
  45. MILGROM LIONEL (homeopathy)
  46. KUETE VICTOR
  47. ADAMS JON (ma)
  48. LITSCHER GERHARD
  49. CHEN CALVIN

The list is interesting in several regards. Principally, it offers individual SCAM researchers for the first time the opportunity to check their international standing relative to their colleagues. But, as the original analysis in Ioannidis’s paper contains much more data than depicted above, there is much further information to be gleaned from it.

For instance, I looked at the rate of self-citation (not least because I have sometimes been accused of overdoing this myself). It turns out that, with 7%, I am relative modest and well below average in that regard. Most of my colleagues are well above that figure. Researchers who have exceptionally high self-citation rates include Buessing (30%), Kuete (43%), Adams (36%), Litscher (45%), and Chen (53%).

The list also opens the possibility to see which countries dominate SCAM research. The dominance of the US seems fairly obvious and would have been expected due to the size of this country and the funds the US put into SCAM research. Considering the lack of funds in the UK, my country ranks surprisingly high, I find. No other country is well-represented in this list. In particular Germany does not appear often (even if we would classify Wallach as German); considering the large amounts of money Germany has invested in SCAM research, this is remarkable and perhaps even a bit shameful, in my view.

Looking at the areas of research, acupuncture and homeopathy seem to stand out. Remarkably, many of the major SCAMs are not or not well represented at all. This is in particular true for herbal medicine, chiropractic and osteopathy.

The list also confirms my former team as the leaders in SCAM research. (Yes, I know: in the country of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.) Pittler, White and Lee were, of course, all former co-workers of mine.

Perhaps the most intriguing finding, I think, relates to the many SCAM researchers who did not make it into the list. Here are a few notable absentees:

  1. Behnke J – GERMANY (homeopathy)
  2. Bensoussan A – AUSTRALIA (acupuncture)
  3. Brinkhaus B – GERMANY  (acupuncture)
  4. Bronfort G  – US  (chiropractic)
  5. Chopra D – US (mind/body)
  6. Cummings M – UK (acupuncture)
  7. Dixon M – UK (ma)
  8. Dobos G – GERMANY (ma)
  9. Fisher P – UK (homeopathy)
  10. Fonnebo V – NORWAY (ma)
  11. Frass M – AUSTRIA (homeopathy)
  12. Goertz C – US (chiropractic)
  13. Hawk C -US (chiropractic)
  14. Horneber M – GERMANY (ma)
  15. Jacobs J – US (homeopathy)
  16. Jobst K – UK (homeopathy)
  17. Kraft K – GERMANY (naturopathy)
  18. Lawrence D – US (chiropractic)
  19. Long CR – US (chiropractic)
  20. Meeker WC – US (chiropractic)
  21. Mathie R – UK (homeopathy)
  22. Melchart – GERMANY (ma)
  23. Michalsen A – GERMANY (ma)
  24. Mills S – UK (herbal medicine)
  25. Peters D – UK (ma)
  26. Reilly D -US (homeopathy)
  27. Reily D – UK (homeopathy)
  28. Robinson N – UK (ma)
  29. Streitberger K – GERMANY (acupuncture)
  30. Tuchin PJ – US (chiropractic)
  31. Uehleke – GERMANY (naturopathy)
  32. Ullman D – US (homeopathy)
  33.  Weil A – US (ma)

I leave it to you to interpret this list and invite you to add more SCAM researchers to it.

 

(thanks to Paul Posadski for helping with the tables)

15 Responses to Who are the most ‘influential’ researchers of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)?

  • Very surprised, my favorite site for pseudoscience didn’t have any authors on this list. I guess they are just guest writers for SBM.

  • It’s almost as if proponents of SCAM aren’t interested in researching their products and services…

  • Speaking of research…. More SCAM “research” in my RSS feed today. This one out of S. Korea/US.

    https://medicalxpress.com/news/2019-09-acupuncture-alcohol-symptoms-rats.html. Link to study: https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/5/9/eaax1342 It’s an open source journal from AAAS. I expected better.

    I couldn’t get past the technobabble to even try to figure out what the results were. But hey. Let’s stick needles in fake meridians to balance fake xi.

    On another note, San Diego Zoo is using acupuncture on one of their elephants and then using crappy thermal imaging to prove it’s working. The story was featured on The Zoo: San Diego on Animal Planet (I think).

  • The difference in publication output between you and everyone else on this list is seriously impressive. Well done!

  • OK, the following may not be ‘on topic’, but I am very weary of the unhelpful – almost hysterical – bias against so called alternative medicine on this forum which is generally harmless to patients. The following snippet is from today’s BBC health section:
    A “super-fit” 35-year-old woman told by her GP that blood in her stools was caused by piles later found she had bowel cancer. After EIGHT MONTHS “back and forth” to the surgery Beth Hewitt was referred to a consultant, who discovered a tumour. Mrs Hewitt said GPs told her: “You’re too young for anything like cancer.”
    This is just one of many true events that are reported in the UK on a regular basis, highlighting indifference and false assumptions made by trusted Doctors. Any comments from medically qualified Practitioners would be welcome, but please don’t change the subject back to SCAM!

    • 1) yes, it’s off topic,
      2) you confuse criticism with bias,
      3) you just broke confidentiality rules,
      4) everyone knows some very poor GPs, I think

    • I am not aware of a bias against alternative medicine here. Professor Ernst has spent his career searching for evidence in favour of it, though as far as I can tell he has yet to find any. On the other hand there are a great many charlatans and liars in the alternative medicine world who harm people in many ways with bogus treatment, even if only by taking their money, delaying proper diagnosis and treatment, discouraging effective and important measures such as vaccination, or just promoting woolly thinking, and I for one am pleased to see anything that exposes them for what they are (even though they do much less harm than the advertising industry).

      The youngest patient I have treated for bowel cancer was 19 (and 37 for prostate cancer, a disease of old men…).

      If the blood was bright enough to confuse with bleeding piles then this would indicate a low tumour that would be easy to feel with a simple rectal examination; if the blood wasn’t fresh then it couldn’t be piles. Either way the GP ought to have been able to detect that something was amiss. When I was a junior doctor in Watford I made a point of doing a rectal examination on every emergency patient I admitted; over a six-month period I found three rectal and one anal cancer that nobody had suspected. As my professor of surgery at Westminster Medical School, Harold Ellis, was fond of saying “If you don’t put your finger in it you will put your foot in it”.

      The other thing the GP could have done was fax the “two-week-rule” referral form to their local hospital after ticking the rectal bleeding box, and the patient would have been examined by a surgeon within 14 days.

      Unfortunately the main barrier to making a diagnosis is often thinking of it in the first place. Everything you can think of in medicine has a range, whether it is the age at which a disease appears, survival after cancer treatment, response to a drug or even something as basic as height. While most people are somewhere in the middle, there will always be a few towards the extremes, and if you forget that fundamental truth (which is mathematical, not biological, in origin) then you will inevitably be caught out.

      While the birds in your garden are likely to be sparrows not peacocks (as the Dean of my medical school, Cionsultant Radiologist Radiologist Dr Joe Gleeson, was fond of saying – though nowadays sparrows are becoming rare), the converse is also true that if you only think of sparrows you won’t notice anything else. He was also fond of saying (in his quiet Irish brogue):

      “You see what you look for. You look for what you know. And you know f*** all.”

  • And we also have this…

    “The present data demonstrate an increase of CAM usage from 1990 through 2006 in all countries investigated.” Ochsner J. 2012 Spring; 12(1): 45–56.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

If you want to be able to edit your comment for five minutes after you first submit it, you will need to tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories