Skip Navigation



eCAM Advance Access published online on July 26, 2006
eCAM, doi:10.1093/ecam/nel044
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrowOA All Versions of this Article:
3/4/425    most recent
nel044v1
Right arrow E-letters: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when E-letters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Canter, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Ernst, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Canter, P. H.
Right arrow Articles by Ernst, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author (2006). Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved.
Received December 8, 2005
Accepted June 6, 2006

Review

Cost-Effectiveness of Complementary Therapies in the United Kingdom--A Systematic Review{dagger}

Peter H. Canter 1 *, Joanna Thompson Coon 1, and Edzard Ernst 1

1 Complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical School, Exeter Devon EX2 4NT, UK

* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
Peter H. Canter, E-mail: peter.canter{at}pms.ac.uk


  Abstract

Objectives: The aim of this review is to systematically summarize and assess all prospective, controlled, cost-effectiveness studies of complementary therapies carried out in the UK. Data sources: Medline (via PubMed), Embase, CINAHL, Amed (Alternative and Allied Medicine Database, British Library Medical Information Centre), The Cochrane Library, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (via Cochrane) and Health Technology Assessments up to October 2005. Review methods: Articles describing prospective, controlled, cost-effectiveness studies of any type of complementary therapy for any medical condition carried out in the UK were included. Data extracted included the main outcomes for health benefit and cost. These data were extracted independently by two authors, described narratively and also presented as a table. Results: Six cost-effectiveness studies of complementary medicine in the UK were identified: four different types of spinal manipulation for back pain, one type of acupuncture for chronic headache and one type of acupuncture for chronic back pain. Four of the six studies compared the complementary therapy with usual conventional treatment in pragmatic, randomized clinical trials without sham or placebo arms. Main outcome measures of effectiveness favored the complementary therapies but in the case of spinal manipulation (four studies) and acupuncture (one study) for back pain, effect sizes were small and of uncertain clinical relevance. The same four studies included a cost-utility analyses in which the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) was less than £10 000. The complementary therapy represented an additional health care cost in five of the six studies. Conclusions: Prospective, controlled, cost-effectiveness studies of complementary therapies have been carried out in the UK only for spinal manipulation (four studies) and acupuncture (two studies). The limited data available indicate that the use of these therapies usually represents an additional cost to conventional treatment. Estimates of the incremental cost of achieving improvements in quality of life compare favorably with other treatments approved for use in the National Health Service. Because the specific efficacy of the complementary therapies for these indications remains uncertain, and the studies did not include sham controls, the estimates obtained may represent the cost-effectiveness non-specific effects associated with the complementary therapies.

Keywords: complementary medicine; cost effectiveness; acupuncture; spinal manipulation.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Evid Based Complement Alternat MedHome page
A. Simon, K. Traynor, K. Santos, G. Blaser, U. Bode, and P. Molan
Medical Honey for Wound Care Still the 'Latest Resort'?
Evid. Based Complement. Altern. Med., January 7, 2008; (2008) nem175v1.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer:
Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.