Dear All,
the conclusions of the NHS R&D systematic review, as published in EHC and
described by Kath
'Effective Health Care does conclude that there is currently insufficient
evidence of effectiveness to either recommend homeopathy as a treatment for
any particular condition, or warrant significant changes in the current
provision of homeopathy'
are not dissimilar to the conclusions of a Cochrane Review on the
effectiveness of prayer
(Intercessory prayer for the alleviation of ill health. In: The Cochrane
Library, Issue 1, 2002.):
'This review provides no guidance for those wishing to uphold or refute the
effect of intercessory prayer. Therefore, in the light of the best available
data, there are no grounds to change current practices'.
I suspect both reviews address problems in areas where results of systematic
reviews will remain inconclusive and not change attitudes. Perhaps that is a
good thing?
Best wishes,
Reinhard
Reinhard Wentz
ICSTM Library Service
London
-----Original Message-----
From: kew5 [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 01 March 2002 14:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Independent story on homeopathic medicine
Dear All
Does Homeopathy Work ?
Read the latest issue of Effective Health Care which focuses on the
effectiveness of one of the most established complementary disciplines -
homeopathy. Online copies of the bulletin are available from:
www.york.ac.uk/inst/crd/ehc73.htm
Effective Health Care does conclude that there is currently insufficient
evidence of effectiveness to either recommend homeopathy as a treatment
for any particular condition, or warrant significant changes in the
current provision of homeopathy.
Kath
--
"Hodgson Julian (WG) Librarian" wrote:
>
> According to a press release from NHS Information Authority and the CRD,
CRD
> have been commissioned by NeLH to "locate and systematically examine" the
> research behind selected health stories. So perhaps we'll see what lies
> behind this in a few days on NeLH.
> Julian Hodgson
> Wishaw General
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Jonathan Hutchins [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> > Sent: 01 March 2002 14:03
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Re: Independent story on homeopathic medicine
> >
> > How is this any different from any other in the endless parade of
alleged
> > disproofs, as a result of which we have not hitherto thrown out our
stock
> > (if we have any) on such subjects?
> >
> >
**************************************************************************
> > *
> > In the light of today's news story in the Independent concerning
> > homeopathic
> > medicine, should we be throwing out our stock on this subject?
> >
http://www.news.independent.co.uk/world/science_medical/story.jsp?story=25
> > 0063
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > **********************************************************************
> > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to
> > which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged
> > material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or
> > taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or
> > entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you
> > received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the
material
> > from any computer.
> > Any opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do
> > not relate to the official business of the Royal Surrey County Hospital
> > NHS Trust shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
> > **********************************************************************
>
> Lanarkshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Disclaimer Notice
> ********************************************************************
> The information contained in this message may be confidential
> or legally privileged and is intended for the addressee only.
> If you have received this message in error or there are any problems
> please notify the originator immediately.
> The unauthorised use,disclosure,copying or alteration of this
> message is strictly forbidden.
|