Since 2003, AFP has published an occasional series of articles evaluating the evidence for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, ranging from ecinachea to probiotics to yoga and meditation for anxiety and depression. In an editorial introducing the series, associate medical editor Sumi Sexton, MD wrote:
The intent of this new AFP series is to summarize and label the evidence behind various alternative therapies, starting with the most frequently prescribed and well-researched herbal remedies and supplements. ... Currently, an abundance of information on CAM exists in textbooks, journals, newsletters, and Web sites. The purpose of the series is not to replace the existing information or to encourage physicians to prescribe CAM therapies, but rather to extract the most important data in the literature and present it as concisely as possible.
However, as an exchange of letters in the October 15th issue of AFP about an article on acupuncture for pain demonstrates, drawing conclusions about the effectiveness of CAM therapies can be challenging. Dr. Paul Delaney asserts that "in a desire to present information regarding treatments designated as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), the editors of American Family Physician seem willing to suspend the usual criteria for evidence-based medicine." In rebuttal, Dr. Robert Kelly cites a Cochrane review that supports the effectiveness of acupuncture in relieving chronic low back pain, and Dr. Sexton notes that the article's supporting references "included several RCTs, systematic reviews, and a meta-analysis, which would warrant an evidence level A for any review article."
A recent report from the National Center for Health Statistics found that U.S. adults spent nearly $34 billion in out-of-pocket costs for CAM practitioners and purchases of CAM therapies, classes, and educational materials in 2007. What do you think family physicians and patients should know about CAM, and how would you rate AFP's CAM series at meeting these needs?