Systematic reviews of complementary therapies – an annotated bibliography. Part 2: Herbal medicine

Background Complementary therapies are widespread but controversial. We aim to provide a comprehensive collection and a summary of systematic reviews of clinical trials in three major complementary therapies (acupuncture, herbal medicine, homeopathy). This article is dealing with herbal medicine. Potentially relevant reviews were searched through the register of the Cochrane Complementary Medicine Field, the Cochrane Library, Medline, and bibliographies of articles and books. To be included articles had to review prospective clinical trials of herbal medicines; had to describe review methods explicitly; had to be published; and had to focus on treatment effects. Information on conditions, interventions, methods, results and conclusions was extracted using a pre-tested form and summarized descriptively. Results From a total of 79 potentially relevant reviews pre-selected in the screening process 58 met the inclusion criteria. Thirty of the reports reviewed ginkgo (for dementia, intermittent claudication, tinnitus, and macular degeneration), hypericum (for depression) or garlic preparations (for cardiovascular risk factors and lower limb atherosclerosis). The quality of primary studies was criticized in the majority of the reviews. Most reviews judged the available evidence as promising but definitive conclusions were rarely possible. Conclusions Systematic reviews are available on a broad range of herbal preparations prescribed for defined conditions. There is very little evidence on the effectiveness of herbalism as practised by specialist herbalists who combine herbs and use unconventional diagnosis

Perspectives of older adults on co-management of low back pain by doctors of chiropractic and family medicine physicians: a focus group study.

BACKGROUND: While older adults may seek care for low back pain (LBP) from both medical doctors (MDs) and doctors of chiropractic (DCs), co-management between these providers is uncommon. The purposes of this study were to describe the preferences of older adults for LBP co-management by MDs and DCs and to identify their concerns for receiving care under such a treatment model. METHODS: We conducted 10 focus groups with 48 older adults who received LBP care in the past year. Interviews explored participants\u27 care seeking experiences, co-management preferences, and perceived challenges to successful implementation of a MD-DC co-management model. We analyzed the qualitative data using thematic content analysis. RESULTS: Older adults considered LBP co-management by MDs and DCs a positive approach as the professions have complementary strengths. Participants wanted providers who worked in a co-management model to talk openly and honestly about LBP, offer clear and consistent recommendations about treatment, and provide individualized care. Facilitators of MD-DC co-management included collegial relationships between providers, arrangements between doctors to support interdisciplinary referral, computer systems that allowed exchange of health information between clinics, and practice settings where providers worked in one location. Perceived barriers to the co-management of LBP included the financial costs associated with receiving care from multiple providers concurrently, duplication of tests or imaging, scheduling and transportation problems, and potential side effects of medication and chiropractic care. A few participants expressed concern that some providers would not support a patient-preferred co-managed care model. CONCLUSIONS: Older adults are interested in receiving LBP treatment co-managed by MDs and DCs. Older adults considered patient-centered communication, collegial interdisciplinary interactions between these providers, and administrative supports such as scheduling systems and health record sharing as key components for successful LBP co-management

Do chiropractic college faculty understand informed consent: a pilot study

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to survey full-time faculty at a single chiropractic college concerning their knowledge of Institutional Review Board (IRB) policies in their institution as they pertain to educational research. METHODS: All full-time faculty were invited to participate in an anonymous survey. Four scenarios involving educational research were described and respondents were asked to select from three possible courses of action for each. In addition, respondents were queried about their knowledge of IRB policies, how they learned of these policies and about their years of service and departmental assignments. RESULTS: The response rate was 55%. In no scenario did the level of correct answers by all respondents score higher than 41% and in most, the scores were closer to just under 1 in 3. Sixty-five percent of respondents indicated they were unsure whether Palmer had any policies in place at all, while 4% felt that no such policies were in place. Just over one-quarter (27%) were correct in noting that students can decline consent, while more than half (54%) did not know whether there were any procedures governing student consent. CONCLUSION: Palmer faculty have only modest understanding about institutional policies regarding the IRB and human subject research, especially pertaining to educational research. The institution needs to develop methods to provide knowledge and training to faculty. The results from this pilot study will be instrumental in developing better protocols for a study designed to survey the entire chiropractic academic community