On 20/1/2023, I conducted multiple Medline searches aimed at generating a rough idea about which areas of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) are currently more research active than others. I searched for:
- the topic in question
- clinical trial
- publication in 2023
Here are my findings (subject area and the number of hits):
- TCM 56
- dietary supplements 47
- acupuncture 34
- integrative medicine 27
- mindfulness 26
- herbal medicine 23
- massage 10
- aromatherapy 2
- hypnotherapy 2
- osteopathy 2
- tai chi 2
- chiropractic 1
- homeopathy 0
- iridology 0
- naturopathy 0
- Reiki 0
Several caveats must be considered, of course: The searches do not include all SCAMs. The results are not precise and most of the retrieved articles are not really clinical trials (in fact, only a minority are). The numbers are low because I deliberately did this exercise early in the year.
Yet, the findings do, I think, give an indication as to the current state of SCAM research and indicate which areas are more research active than others. To put the numbers in perspective, here are a few conventional therapies for which I searched on the same day and in the same manner:
- pharmacology 539
- physiotherapy 162
- psychiatry 239
- surgery 879
I think this makes one point fairly clear: SCAM is not an impressively research-active area. Another point stems from looking at the individual articles. TCM and acupuncture articles are almost exclusively authored by Chinese researchers. While this might not be surprising, the fact that herbal medicine is similar did amaze me; about half of the papers in this category are by Chinese authors. Essentially, this suggests that more than half of the SCAM articles currently originate from China. Considering the concerns one must have about Chinese SCAM research (see for instance here and here), do you think this finding might be worrying?
The far greater worry, I feel, is the attitude of the SCAM researchers publishing their work. Glancing at these papers I did not get the impression that many approached their subject critically, In fact, most of the papers looked to me overtly promotional and of poor quality. For instance, I did not see a single paper assessing the risks of SCAM which arguably is the most important issue in SCAM research. I admit that these concerns cannot be addressed by the above simple head count; they are best dealt with by critically analyzing individual studies – a task I regularly try to tackle on this blog
19 Responses to My concerns about the current research activity in so-called alternative medicine (SCAM)
Leave a Reply to DC Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
This sort of thing has been noted before, for example:
Linde K, Melchart D (1998). Randomized controlled trials of individualized homeopathy: a state-of-the-art review. J Altern Complement Med, Winter 1998;4(4):371-88
What qualifies physiotherapy to be listed as a conventional therapy?
The fact that it is widely used and accepted by most health professionals.
“Conventional treatment or Conventional therapy is the therapy that is widely used and accepted by most health professionals. It is different from alternative therapies, which are not as widely used.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_treatment#:~:text=Conventional%20treatment%20or%20Conventional%20therapy%20is%20the%20therapy,for%20cancer%20include%20surgery%2C%20chemotherapy%20and%20radiation%20therapy.
“Treatments that are widely accepted and practiced by the mainstream medical community.”
Gale Encyclopedia of Medicine. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.
I didn’t know the mainstream medical community widely practiced physiotherapy. I thought they tend to refer that stuff out to PTs.
“Didn’t know”…”thought”…
Physiotherapy is an important part of modern holistic healthcare. For example we have physiotherapists in our hospitals working with patients in orthopedics, ICU, surgery, rehaabilitation and so forth. On the other hand we have zero chiropractors, herbalists, osteopaths, homeopaths, acupuncturists….
Your homework is to try to figure out why the physiotherapists are an important part of the modern medical team and why some other wannabe practitioners are not in demand.
In Vienna I employed ~60 physios in my department.
“Although many physical therapists practice in hospitals, more than 80% practice in other settings, according to the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA).”
https://explorehealthcareers.org/career/physical-therapy/physical-therapist/
Comes down to definitions.
mainstream medical community
Just seems strange to list physiotherapy along side pharmacology and surgery.
“Although many physical therapists practice in hospitals, more than 80% practice in other settings, according to the American Physical Therapy Association (APTA).”
I have good news for you: there are other countries besides the US in this world.
“Just seems strange to list physiotherapy along side pharmacology and surgery.”
are you sure that your reason for going on about this triviality is not to distract from the real point of my blog?
The real point?
How about considering there are approximately:
6 million MDs
1.5 million PTs
100,000 chiropractors
pharmaceutical research covers every known disease to humans
chiropractic research covers mainly two conditions…nsNP and nsLBP
Hmmm, would that affect the number of publishing clinical trials?
1000s of MD (pharmaceutical directed) journals
two primary chiropractic journals of which one is published quarterly
sure chiropractors need to pick up the game on clinical research. But your little comparison above doesn’t cover several factors.
“chiropractic research covers mainly two conditions…nsNP and nsLBP”
not according to the loon who invented your SCAM!
EE: not according to the loon who invented your SCAM!
The topic is recent research, not what someone said or thought 125 years ago.
even recent chiro research is not “mainly two conditions…nsNP and nsLBP”
But thanks for confirming that chiro is based on a loon’s imagination
actually, it appears he based his views mainly on correlation and mistook it for causation. Not uncommon for that time period.
It appears chrios these days still can’t differentiate between correlation and causation. Below is a typical example:
https://draxe.com/health/what-is-a-chiropractor/#Top_7_Benefits_of_Chiropractic
https://draxe.com/health/chiropractic-care-and-autism/
Bolding mine.
Thank goodness for ‘chiropractic research’:
https://commons.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Dr._Heidi_Bockhold_Adjusts_Horse.jpg
once again Pete adds nothing to the topic/s at hand.
I echo Björn’s comment to ‘DC’:
Talker: It appears chrios these days still can’t differentiate between correlation and causation.
Yep, some of them. But that’s not unique to chiropractors.