Skip Navigation

JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 2003 95(2):96-98; doi:10.1093/jnci/95.2.96
© 2003 by Oxford University Press
This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Request Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, T.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, T.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Vol. 95, No. 2, 96-98, January 15, 2003
© 2003 Oxford University Press

NEWS

Keeping Up With Alternative Medicine: Researchers Offer Evaluation Criteria

Tom Reynolds

The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below.

As more and more cancer patients turn to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) therapies, their physicians face the challenge of keeping up with trends in CAM use and the evidence for the potential benefits and harms of these treatments.

To help doctors and their patients make decisions about which CAM therapies to use and which to avoid, experts have begun to create databases and strategies for evaluating the treatments. For an area in which new therapies are constantly going in and out of fashion, this is proving to be no small task.

A team led by researchers at the Osher Institute of Harvard Medical School in Boston recently published a wide-ranging review of CAM therapies for cancer and laid out a framework for assessing the merits of others that may . . . [Full Text of this Article]


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?