What is this nonsense that complementary and alternative medicine is not amenable to controlled investigation of population effects?

Academic Medicine

Volumn 76, Issue 12, 2001, Pages 1221-1223

  Bloom, Bernard S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH PRACTITIONER; MEDICAL CARE; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL;

EID: 0035698155     PISSN: 10402446     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1097/00001888-200112000-00012     Document Type: Note

References (22)

1. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: Results of a follow-up
2. Streptomycin treatment in pulmonary tuberculosis
3. The treatment of acute infectious hepatitis
4. Oriatrike, or physick refined
5. The clinical evaluation of remedies
6. Culturally grounded review of research assumptions
7. Culture and clinical care: Folk illness beliefs and behaviors and their implications for health care delivery
8. How should alternative therapies be evaluated?
9. On double-blinds and double standards
10. Complementary medicine; what physicians think of it: A meta analysis
11. Evaluation of randomized control trials on complementary and alternative medicine
12. Acute myocardial infarction: Home and hospital treatment
13. A randomised trial of home-versus-hospital management for patients with suspected myocardial infarction
14. Comparison of internal mammary artery ligation and sham operation for angina pectoris
15. Tamoxifen and risk of large bowel cancer in women with breast cancer
16. Use of reperfusion therapy for acute myocardial infarction in the United States: Data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2