To the Editor: I applaud the Medical Journal of Australia’s recent attempt to increase the evidence base of complementary medicine.1 However, it is disappointing that the Journal’s idea of doing so seems to be to import the same dogmatic and misinformed debate currently occurring in the United Kingdom.
The full article is accessible to AMA members and paid subscribers. Login to read more or purchase a subscription now.
Please note: institutional and Research4Life access to the MJA is now provided through Wiley Online Library.
- School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD.
Correspondence: j.wardle@sph.uq.edu.au
- 1. Ernst E. Homeopathy: what does the “best” evidence tell us [systematic review]? Med J Aust 2010; 192: 458-460. <MJA full text>
- 2. Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analyzed trials. J Clin Epidemiol 2008; 61: 1197-1204.
- 3. House of Commons Science and Technology Committee. Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy — Fourth Report of Sessions 2009–10. Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London: House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 2010.
- 4. How much do we know? Clinical Evidence [internet]. London: BMJ Publishing Group, 2010. http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp (accessed Apr 2010).
- 5. Mason S, Tovey P, Long AF. Evaluating complementary medicine: methodological challenges of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 2002; 325: 832-834.
- 6. Spence DS, Thompson EA, Barron SJ. Homeopathic treatment for chronic disease: a 6-year, university-hospital outpatient observational study. J Altern Complement Med 2005; 11: 793-798.
Online responses are no longer available. Please refer to our instructions for authors page for more information.