Which research is needed to support clinical decision-making on integrative medicine? Can comparative effectiveness research close the gap?.
- Author:
Claudia M WITT
1
;
Wen-jing HUANG
;
Lixing LAO
;
Brian M BERMAN
Author Information
1. Charité University Medical Center, Institute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Berlin (10117), Germany. claudia.witt@charite.de
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- MeSH:
Comparative Effectiveness Research;
Integrative Medicine;
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic;
Research Design
- From:
Chinese Journal of Integrated Traditional and Western Medicine
2013;33(8):1030-1035
- CountryChina
- Language:Chinese
-
Abstract:
In clinical research on complementary and integrative medicine, experts and scientists have often pursued a research agenda in spite of an incomplete understanding of the needs of end users. Consequently, the majority of previous clinical trials have mainly assessed the efficacy of interventions. Scant data is available on their effectiveness. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) promises to support decision makers by generating evidence that compares the benefits and harms of best care options. This evidence, more generalizable than evidence generated by traditional randomized clinical trials (RCTs), is better suited to inform real-world care decisions. An emphasis on CER supports the development of the evidence base for clinical and policy decision-making. Whereas in most areas of complementary and integrative medicine data on CER is scarce, available acupuncture research already contributes to CER evidence. This paper will introduce CER and make suggestions for future research.
