Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Usage of complementary therapies in rheumatology: A systematic review

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Clinical Rheumatology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Complementary medicine (CM) is more popular than ever before. Rheumatology patients seem particularly keen to try CM. In this paper, surveys on rheumatology patients' use of CM are reviewed. The issues of perceived effectiveness, safety and costs are also addressed. In addition surveys of doctors' attitudes towards CM in rheumatology are summarised. Fourteen surveys on patients' use of CM and three on patients' attitudes towards CM were found and analysed. The results imply that the prevalence of CM varies between 30% and nearly 100%. Overall, patients perceive CM as being moderately effective. The survey contains only few data on adverse events of CM as perceived by these patients; collectively they suggest that adverse events are uncommon. Data on costs are similarly sparse; they imply that expenditure for CM is rarely high. Physicians seem to be more sceptical about CM than are their patients. It is concluded that, on average, CM is frequently used by rheumatology patients. The patients' level of satisfaction with CM is often considerable and few adverse effects are being reported. On the basis of these findings, a rigorous investigation of the effectiveness, safety and costs of CM in rheumatology seems desirable.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Eisenberg DM, Kessler RC, Foster C, Norlock FE, Calkins DR, Delbanco TL. Unconventional medicine in the United States. N Engl J Med 1993;328:246–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Fisher P, Ward A. Complementary medicine in Europe. Br Med J 1994;309:107–11.

    Google Scholar 

  3. MacLennan AH, Wilson DH, Taylor AW. Prevalence and cost of alternative medicine in Australia. Lancet 1996;347:569–73.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Ernst E, Resch KL, Mills S, Hill R, Mitchell A, Willoughby M, White A. Complementary medicine—a definition. Br J Gen Pract 1995;506.

  5. Cassileth B R, Lusk E J, Strouse T B, Bodenheimer B J. Contemporary unorthodox treatments in cancer medicine. Ann Intern Med 1984;101:105–12.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Thomas KJ, Carr J, Westlake L, Williams BT. Use of nonorthodox and conventional healthcare in Britain. Br Med J 1991;302:207–10.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Brown JH, Spitz PW, Fries JF. Unorthodox treatments in rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis Rheum 1980;23(suppl 1):657–8.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kronfeld JJ, Wasner C. The use of unorthodox therapies and marginal practitioners. Soc Sci Med 1982;16:1119–25.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Pullar T, Capell HA, Millar A, Brooks. Alternative medicine: costs and subjective benefit in rheumatoid arthritis. Br Med J 1982;285:1629–31.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Huilgol VR, Howell CA, Higgins MJ, Alton J, Tilly SJ, Harris RD, Brooks PM. Non-traditional medication for rheumatoid arthritis. Aust NZ Med J 1982;12:562.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Higham C, Ashcroft C, Jayson MIV. Non-prescribed treatments in rheumatic diseases. Practitioner 1983;227:1201–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Cassidy M, Jacobs A, Bresnihan B. The use of unproven remedies for rheumatoid arthritis in Ireland. Irish Med J 1983;76:464–5.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Struthers GR, Scott DL, Scott DGI. The use of alternative treatments by patients with rheumatoid arthritis. Rheumatol Int 1983;3:151–2.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Kestin M, Miller M, Miller L, Littlejohn G, Wahlgvist M. The use of unproven remedies for rheumatoid arthritis in Australia. Med J Austr 1985;143:516–8.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Cronan TA, Kaplan RM, Posnes L, Blumberg E, Kozin F. Prevalence of the use of unconventional remedies for arthritis in a metropolitan community. Arch Rheum 1989;32:1604–7.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Visser GJ, Peters L, Raser JJ. Rheumatologists and their patients who seek alternative care, an agreement to disagree. Br J Rheumatol 1992;31:485–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Krajnc I. Alternative medicine in the treatment of rheumatic diseases. Lijec Vjesn 1993;115:35–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Boisset M, Fitzcharles MA. Alternative medicine use by rheumatology patients in a universal health care setting. J Rheumatol 1994;21:148–52.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Arcury TA, Bernard SL, Jordan JM, Cook HL. Gender and ethnic differences in alternative and conventional arthritis remedy use among community-dwelling rural adults with arthritis. Arthritis Care Res 1996;9:384–90.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Dimmock S, Troughton PR, Bird HA. Factors predisposing to the resort of complementary therapies in patients with fibromyalgia. Clin Rheumatol 1996;15:478–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Velimirovic B. Alternative Heilmethoden in Österreich. Wien Klin Woschr 1989;101:774–80.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Marshall RJ, Gee R, Israel M. The use of alternative therapies by Auckland general practitioners. NZ Med J 1990;103:213–5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Oepen I. Pseudo-Naturheilverfahren und Außenseitermethoden in der Rheumatologie. Ztschr Rheumatol 1993;52:264–74.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Ernst E. Placebo in medicine [letter]. Lancet 1995;345:65.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Ernst E, Willoughby M, Weihmayr TH. Nine possible reasons for choosing complementary medicine. Perfusion 1995;8:356–8.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Resch K, Hill S, Ernst E. Use of complementary therapies by individuals with ‘arthritis’. Clin Rheumatol 1977;16:391–5.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Woodham A. Health Education Authority guide to complementary medicine and therapies. London: Health Education Authority, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Abbot NC, White AR, Ernst E. Complementary medicine. Nature 1996;381:361.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Ernst E, De Smet PAGM. Adverse effects of complementary therapies. In: Duke, editor. Meyler's side effects. Amsterdam: Elseviert, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Ernst E, White A. Acupuncture: safety first. Br Med J 1997;314:1362.

    Google Scholar 

  31. White AR, Resch KL, Ernst E. Methods of economic evaluation in complementary medicine. Forsch Komplementärmed 1996;3:196–203.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Complementary Medicine, Postgraduate Medical School, University of Exeter, 25 Victoria Park Road, EX2 4NT, Exeter, UK

    E. Ernst

Authors
  1. E. Ernst
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Ernst.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Ernst, E. Usage of complementary therapies in rheumatology: A systematic review. Clin Rheumatol 17, 301–305 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01451009

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01451009

Keywords

Search

Navigation