Advertisement

Wiener Klinische Wochenschrift

, Volume 116, Issue 4, pp 128–130 | Cite as

Anthroposophical medicine: A systematic review of randomised clinical trials

  • Edzard ErnstEmail author
Original Article

Summary

The aim of this systematic review was to summarise and critically evaluate all randomised clinical trials testing the effectiveness of the whole system of anthroposophical medicine either as a sole or as an adjunctive form of treatment. Seven independent literature searches were conducted to locate all such studies. Trials of single remedies within the wider anthroposophical approach were excluded. No language restrictions were applied. Unfortunately not a single study was located which met the inclusion/exclusion criteria. It was therefore concluded that, at present, the question whether the anthroposophical concept of healing generates more good than harm cannot be answered.

Key words

Anthroposophy alternative medicine systematic review randomised trials 

Anthroposophische Medizin: Ein systematischer Review randomisierter klinischer Studien

Zusammenfassung

Das Ziel dieses systematischen Reviews war es, alle randomisierten klinischen Studien, die die Wirksamkeit des Gesamtkonzepts der anthroposophischen Medizin als adjuvante oder singuläre Behandlungsform zu testen, zusammenzufassen und kritisch zu evaluieren. Sieben Literaturrecherchen wurden hierzu durchgeführt. Studien, die spezifische Modalitäten innerhalb des breiten anthroposophischen Therapiekonzepts prüfen, wurden ausgeschlossen. Es wurden Publikationen in allen Sprachen zugelassen. Leider fand sich keine Studie, die allen Ein- und Ausschlusskriterien entsprach. Daher wurde der Schluss gezogen, dass die Frage, ob anthroposophische Medizin mehr Nutzen als Schaden bringt, derzeit nicht beantwortbar ist.

Schlüsselwörter

Anthroposophie Alternativmedizin systematischer Review randomisierte Studien 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Swayne J (2002) International dictionary of homeopathy. Churchill Livingstone. Edinburgh, p 212Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cantor IS, Rosenzweig S (1997) Anthroposophic perspectives in primary care. Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice 24: 867–887PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pschyrembel (2000) Wörterbuch Naturheilkunde. De Gruyter, Berlin, S 107Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Segen JC (1998) Dictionary of alternative medicine. Appleton and Lange. Stamford ConnecticutGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cysarz D, Heckmann C, Bettermann H, Kummell HC (2002) Effects of anthroposophical remedy on cardiorespiratory regulation. Altern Ther Health Med 8: 78–83PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Grossarth-Maticek R, Kiene H, Baumgartner SM, Ziegler R (2001) Use of Iscador, an extract of European mistletoe (Viscum album), in cancer treatment: prospective nonrandomized and randomized matched-pairs studies nested within a cohort study. Altern Ther Health Med 7: 57–78PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    von Bonin D, Fruhwirth M, Heuser P, Moser M (2001) Effects of speech therapy with poetry on heart rate variability and well-being. Forsch Komplementärmed Klass Naturheikd 8: 144–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ernst E, Schmidt K (2003) Mistletoe for cancer? A systematic review of randomised controlled trials. Int J Cancer 107: 262–267PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kaegi E (1998) Unconventional therapies for cancer 3. Iscador. CMAJ 158: 1157–1159PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kleijnen J, Knipschild P (1994) Mistletoe treatment for cancer: review of controlled trials in humans. Phytomedicine 1: 255–260Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cerny T, Heusser P (1999) Quality of life of patients with metastatic breast or intestinal cancer, treated with anthroposophic medicine or with mainstream medicine, the latter with or without psycho-oncologic or supplementary anthroposophic therapy. Forsch Komplementärmed 6: 35–37PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ernst E, Canter PH (2003) Investigator bias and false positive findings in medical research. Trends Pharmacol Sci 24: 219–221PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ernst E, Pittler MH, Stevinson C, White AR (2001) The desktop guide to complementary and alternative medicine. Mosby. EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Carlsson M, Arman M, Backman M, Hamrin E (2001) Perceived quality of life and coping for Swedish women with breast cancer who choose complementary medicine. Cancer Nurs 24: 395–401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Van der Wal MF, Diepenmaat ACM, Pauw Plomp H, Van Weert Waltman ML (2001) High vaccination rate of Amsterdam’s children. Ned Tijdschr Geneeskd 145: 131–135PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Campbell M, et al (2000) Framework for design and evaluation of complex interventions to improve health. BMJ 321 694–696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.complementary Medicine, Peninsula Medical SchoolUniversities of Exeter & PlymouthExeterUK

Personalised recommendations