Anthroposophische Medizin: Health Technology Assessment Bericht – Kurzfassung
The aim of this Health Technology Assessment Report was to analyse the current situation, efficacy, effectiveness, safety, utilization, and costs of Anthroposophic Medicine (AM) with special emphasis on everyday practice. Design: Systematic review. Material and Methods: Search of 20 databases, refer...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Complementary medicine research 2006-02, Vol.13 (Suppl 2), p.7-18 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng ; ger |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | The aim of this Health Technology
Assessment Report was to analyse the current situation, efficacy,
effectiveness, safety, utilization, and costs of Anthroposophic
Medicine (AM) with special emphasis on everyday practice. Design:
Systematic review. Material and Methods: Search of 20
databases, reference lists and expert consultations. Criteriabased
analysis was performed to assess methodological quality
and external validity of the studies. Results: AM is a complementary
medical system that extends conventional medicine and provides
specific pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments.
It covers all areas of medicine. 178 clinical trials on efficacy
and effectiveness were identified: 17 RCTs, 21 prospective and
43 retrospective NRCTs, 50 prospective and 47 retrospective cohort
studies/case-series without control groups. They investigated
a wide range of AM-treatments in a variety of diseases, 90 ×
mistletoe in cancer. 170 trials had a positive result for AM.
Methodological quality differed substantially; some studies
showed major limitations, others were reasonably well conducted.
Trials of better quality still showed a positive result. External
validity was usually high. Side effects or other risks are rare. AMpatients
are well educated, often female, aged 30-50 years, or
children. The few economic investigations found less or equal
costs in AM because of reduced hospital admissions and less
prescriptions of medications. Conclusion: Trials of varying design
and quality in a variety of diseases predominantly describe good
clinical outcome for AM, little side effects, high satisfaction of patients
and presumably slightly less costs. More research and
more methodological expertise and infrastructure are desirable. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2504-2092 1661-4119 2504-2106 1661-4127 |
DOI: | 10.1159/000093481 |