Quality indicator for Complementary TreatmentsThere are many professionals using hundreds of different non-regular or complementary treatments (alternative medicine). The treatments range from traditional non-Western medicine such as acupuncture, Ayurvedic, Tibetan medicine, Winti to a variety of diets and supplements.
It is for patients virtually impossible to rate therapies on their usefullness. IOCOB is currently developing a quality indicator for complementary therapies and indicates how reliable and usefull a treatment is. This indicator is designed to assist the patient to help create a sound choice. And for doctors to help recommendations. We currently five distinct categories:  | Usefull: the first class, Class I treatments are reliable and there ware sufficient scientific studies on safely and effectively. Examples: manual therapy for chronic neck pain and acupuncture for migraine, nausea and osteoarthrosis of the knee. For individual interventions and preparations a green light will be given when at least two positive and methodologically sound studies on the effectiveness and safety are published. |  | It may make sense: there is evidence of safety, efficacy, the theory behind the treatment is consistent. There is one positive sound clinical study.
Examples of the Class II treatments, visualizing as orange green are: glucosamine with osteoarthritis and L-acetylcarnitine by fatigue. |  | Questionable: There is some evidence for the safety and efficacy, though clinical studies are conflicting or no rigorous clinical studies have been done. The theory is consistent.
The Class III treatments of IOCOB with an orange are for exemple: certain forms of orthomoleculair treatments. |  | Very doubtful: there is no evidence for the efficacy, the theory behind the treatment is exotic, but may have a core of truth. There may be some indications that the treatment is safe.
The Class IV treatments of IOCOB which have an orange-red light are for example: all forms of bioresonance, EM-X therapy, blach cohosh for postmenopausal complaints. |  | Fully unreliable: there is no evidence of the efficacy and safety for the treatment, the treatment is being supported by a theory that is incomprehensible, the treatment is usually accompanied by a kind of 'guru' vibes, the terms used give the impression of a scientificly based treatment, but it is not. In PubMed there are no evaluation studies. Literature almost always exists only on non scientific websites. Class V of IOCOB gets a red light. Examples: Tachyon treatments, Radionica, Rife and Hulda Clark treatment of cancer. | Possibly or probably useful treatments, though hardly impossible to investigate according to the classical model of the RCT (randomised clinical trial) are most of the body-mind interventions. This includes Cesar and Alexander therapy, neo-Reichian therapy, Primal Scream therapy, rebirth, rebalancing, various massage techniques ed. These treatments IOCOB does not rate. Patients need to experience how useful such treatments are.
Various aspects will be reviewd for further elaboration of this format, including: - Evidence for efficacy
- Evidence for safety
- Consistency of the theory that the treatments supports
- Presence of reliable professional, education, training, accreditation and
- Presence of reliable and credible information to the patient
- Cost-effectiveness and patient satisfaction
- Cooperation with mainstream medicine
|
