Scientific methods used to measure the efficacy of alternative therapies in animals

Abstract

AbstractThe aim of this report was to evaluate the methods used to test the efficacy of complementary and alternative veterinary medicine. A general review of available literature in this area was carried out and experimental design of 26 reported trials was analysed in detail. Quantitative evidence must form the basis of medicinal treatments, whether they fall under the traditional western medicine genre or whether they are seen as complementary or alternative therapies. Results from the quantitative characterisation of publications showed that within the ‘animal’ sector, the majority of work published is nonexperimental. Medline PubMed, for the years 1975 to 2005 returned a total of 400 review papers incorporating work from the human sector in alternative animal therapy in comparison to only 75 papers on experimental work. Of the 26 alternative veterinary medicine papers reviewed in detail 19 trials used a control group to assess the efficacy of the therapy tested. The experimental designs applied in clinical trials within this area are acceptable, using high levels of control and quantitative measurements. Improvements could be made through increased use of blind and double blind designs. Although there is lack of scientific evidence for alternative therapies, the application of these is continuously growing. This imbalance should be acknowledged and rectified.