A systematic review investigating the effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) for the management of low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) in pregnancy

Aim: To evaluate and summarize the current evidence on the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for the management of low back pain and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Background: International research demonstrates that 25-30% of women use complementary and alternative medicine to manage low back and pelvic pain in pregnancy without robust evidence demonstrating its effectiveness.

Design: A systematic review of randomized controlled trials to determine the effectiveness of complementary and alternative medicine for low back and/or pelvic pain in pregnancy.

Data Sources: Cochrane library (1898-2013), PubMed (1996-2013), MEDLINE (1946-2013), AMED (1985-2013), Embase (1974-2013), Cinahl (1937-2013), Index to Thesis (1716-2013) and Ethos (1914-2013).

Review Methods: Selected studies were written in English, randomized controlled trials, a group 1 or 2 therapy and reported pain reduction as an outcome measure. Study quality was reviewed using Risk of Bias and evidence strength the Cochrane Grading of Recommendations and Development Evaluation Tool.

Results: Eight studies were selected for full review. Two acupuncture studies with low risk of bias showed both clinically important changes and statistically significant results. There was evidence of effectiveness for osteopathy and chiropractic. However, osteopathy and chiropractic studies scored high for risk of bias. Strength of the evidence across studies was very low.

Conclusion: There is limited evidence supporting the use of general CAM for managing pregnancy-related low back and/or pelvic pain. However, the restricted availability of high-quality studies, combined with the very low evidence strength, makes it impossible to make evidence-based recommendations for practice.

A longitudinal analysis of self-prescribed complementary and alternative medicine use by a nationally representative sample of 19,783 Australian women, 2006-2010

BACKGROUND: Complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) use is increasingly popular amongst general populations around the world with women constituting substantial CAM users. However, self-prescribed CAM use does raise potential safety concerns and so it is important to identify those risk factors associated with self-prescribed CAM use. METHODS: Data was obtained from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women's Health (ALSWH). Longitudinal data analyses were conducted on questionnaire data from the 1973-78 cohort (n=9,145) and the 1946-51 cohort (n=10,638), collected over the period 2006-2010. RESULTS: In the 1973-78 cohort, use of self-prescribed CAM was 73.2% in 2006 and 75.3% in 2009. For the 1946-51 cohort, use of self-prescribed CAM was 73.9% in 2007 and 74.7% in 2010. There were similar levels of use of individual self-prescribed CAM, with the exception that the use of herbal medicine was much higher among the 1946-51 cohort (20% vs. 27%). There was a substantial increase over three years in the use of vitamins/minerals in both cohorts (21% and 19%, respectively). In contrast, there was a considerable decline over three years in use of aromatherapy oils in both cohorts (34% and 28%, respectively). CONCLUSION: Self-prescribed CAM use is popular amongst women in Australia and it is important that conventional practitioners providing women's health care be cognizant of such use amongst their patients. In order to ensure effective practice, there is a need for further research to explore women's decision-making and experiences around self-prescribed CAM use.

How should complementary and alternative medicine be taught to medical students in Switzerland? A survey of medical experts and students

In Switzerland and in the whole western world, the growing popularity of CAM is calling for its implementation in the undergraduate medical curriculum.

How many cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review and metaanalysis

Background. No comprehensive systematic review has been published since 1998 about the frequency with which cancer patients use complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). Methods. MEDLINE, AMED, and Embase databases were searched for surveys published until January 2009. Surveys conducted in Australia, Canada, Europe, New Zealand, and the United States with at least 100 adult cancer patients were included. Detailed information on methods and results was independently extracted by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was assessed using a criteria list developed according to the STROBE guideline. Exploratory random effects metaanalysis and metaregression were applied. Results. Studies from 18 countries (152; >65 000 cancer patients) were included. Heterogeneity of CAM use was high and to some extent explained by differences in survey methods. The combined prevalence for “current use” of CAM across all studies was 40%. The highest was in the United States and the lowest in Italy and the Netherlands. Metaanalysis suggested an increase in CAM use from an estimated 25% in the 1970s and 1980s to more than 32% in the 1990s and to 49% after 2000. Conclusions. The overall prevalence of CAM use found was lower than often claimed. However, there was some evidence that the use has increased considerably over the past years. Therefore, the health care systems ought to implement clear strategies of how to deal with this. To improve the validity and reporting of future surveys, the authors suggest criteria for methodological quality that should be fulfilled and reporting standards that should be required.

The supply of complementary and alternative medicine in Swiss hospitals

OBJECTIVES: Over the past few years, a considerable increase in complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has been observed, particularly in primary care. In contrast little is known about the supply of CAM in Swiss hospitals. This study aims at the investigation of amount and structure of CAM activities of Swiss hospitals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We designed a cross-sectional survey using a 2-step, questionnaire- based approach acquiring overview information form hospital managers in a first questionnaire leading to detailed information on CAM usage at medical department level (head of department). This second questionnaire provides data of physician-based and non-physician-based CAM supply. RESULTS: The size of hospitals was significantly associated with the provision of CAM. 33% of the hospital managers indicated 1 or more medical doctor (MD) using CAM in their hospital compared to 37% of confirmation on department level (Kappa value 0.5). Mostly different CAM methods were applied. Acupuncture was used most frequently. However only 13 hospitals (11%) occupied more than 3 CAM MDs and only 5 hospitals had more than 2 full-time equivalents for MDs. Furthermore, 74.7% of these personnel resources were dedicated for outpatient care. In terms of CAM methods anthroposophic medicine accounted for more than half of the total personnel costs. On the other hand usage of non-physician based CAM accounted for 41% according to hospital managers compared to 64% of CAM usage according to medical departments (Kappa values 0.31). Reflexology of the foot was used most frequently. CONCLUSION: Total supply of CAM in Swiss hospitals is low and concentrates on few hospitals. Acupuncture is the widest spread discipline but anthroposophic medicine spends the most resources. The study shows that a high patient demand for CAM faces low supply in hospitals.