Skip to main content
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2011 Apr 1.
Published in final edited form as: Med Care. 2010 Apr;48(4):341–348. doi: 10.1097/mlr.0b013e3181ca3ee2

Table 2.

CAM and Conventional Medicine Practitioners’ ratings of the effectiveness of CAM therapies, stratified by the journal in which research data is presented and the type of CAM studied.

Vignettes and Factors CAM Practitioners Conventional Medical Practitioners

N “Effective” % P-value (unadj.) OR (adj.) 95% C.I. N “Effective” % P- value (unadj.) OR (adj.) 95% C.I.
Research Vignette #1: Clinical Trial of a CAM therapy for osteoarthritis of hand showing improvement in pain scores
Journal Source Annals of Int. Medicine 439 85 0.4 1.0 -- 329 54 0.09 1.0 --
Journal of CAM 420 83 0.9 (0.6, 1.3) 317 48 0.8 (0.6, 1.0)

CAM Therapy Reiki (ref) 174 76 <.001 1.0 -- 135 49 0.94 1.0 --
Acupuncture 159 95 5.8 (2.6, 12.8) 122 49 1.0 (0.6, 1.7)
Glucosamine 156 83 1.5 (0.9, 2.7) 128 52 1.2 (0.7, 1.9)
Massage 182 89 2.5 (1.4, 4.5) 126 53 1.2 (0.7, 1.9)
Meditation 188 78 1.1 (0.7, 1.8) 135 52 1.2 (0.7, 1.9)

Research Vignette #2: Clinical Trial of a CAM therapy for carpal tunnel syndrome showing no improvement
Journal Source Annals of Int. Medicine (ref) 403 25 0.27 1.0 -- 319 3
Journal of CAM 414 28 1.3 (0.9, 1.8) 331 3

CAM Therapy Reiki (ref) 153 11 <.001 1.0 -- 132 2
Acupuncture 163 65 15.0 (8.3, 27.4) 122 3
Glucosamine 171 16 1.6 (0.8, 3.0) 125 2
Massage 169 25 2.7 (1.4, 4.9) 139 5
Meditation 161 17 1.7 (0.9, 3.2) 132 2

Unadjusted p-value from Chi-Square test comparing percent rating “effective” across levels of factor.

Odds ratio from multivariable logistic regression model estimating odds of rating a practice as “effective”, if given a specific factor when controlling for all other factors.