Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Journal Club

Journal Club Complement Med Res 2018;25:153–158 DOI: 10.1159/000490755 This issues’ ‘Journal Club’ represents the whole complexity of research in complementary and alternative medicine. Being very heterogeneous this field embraces a wide variety of different therapies, often non-pharmacolog- ical. Quite many of them rely on theories of effect that – regarding their ori- gin and theoretical background – are based upon historically old whole med- ical systems such as acupuncture. These historic concepts are almost as a general rule not in line with the contemporary understanding of physiology. Particularly in acupuncture research, the last decades have contributed sub- stantially to our understanding of acupuncture, but have likewise raised many new questions, such as whether acupuncture represents an especially potent placebo. Chae et al. have a share in our understanding of this issue with their critical discussion of the feasibility and validity of sham acupunc- ture devices in clinical research. However, even treatments which explicitly understand themselves as being well-established within contemporary phys- iology often lack substantiated scientific evidence. With their elegant pilot study, Weinschenk et al. contribute to our understanding of neural therapy for the treatment of chronic neck pain. Traditional healing has received more attention in recent years, and it is http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Complementary Medicine Research Karger

Journal Club

Complementary Medicine Research , Volume 25 (3): 6 – Jan 1, 2018
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/karger/journal-club-x1XWJ6ThRt

References (11)

Publisher
Karger
Copyright
© 2018 S. Karger AG, Basel
ISSN
2504-2092
eISSN
2504-2106
DOI
10.1159/000490755
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Complement Med Res 2018;25:153–158 DOI: 10.1159/000490755 This issues’ ‘Journal Club’ represents the whole complexity of research in complementary and alternative medicine. Being very heterogeneous this field embraces a wide variety of different therapies, often non-pharmacolog- ical. Quite many of them rely on theories of effect that – regarding their ori- gin and theoretical background – are based upon historically old whole med- ical systems such as acupuncture. These historic concepts are almost as a general rule not in line with the contemporary understanding of physiology. Particularly in acupuncture research, the last decades have contributed sub- stantially to our understanding of acupuncture, but have likewise raised many new questions, such as whether acupuncture represents an especially potent placebo. Chae et al. have a share in our understanding of this issue with their critical discussion of the feasibility and validity of sham acupunc- ture devices in clinical research. However, even treatments which explicitly understand themselves as being well-established within contemporary phys- iology often lack substantiated scientific evidence. With their elegant pilot study, Weinschenk et al. contribute to our understanding of neural therapy for the treatment of chronic neck pain. Traditional healing has received more attention in recent years, and it is

Journal

Complementary Medicine Research – Karger

Published: Jan 1, 2018

There are no references for this article.