Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies
www.pharmpress.com/fact
Focus Alternat Complement Ther©2005 Pharmaceutical Press
Focus Altern Complement Ther 1997; 2: 190–1
Clinical trials testing unconventional methods or drugs are often neither promising nor ethically justified. From a practical point of view, “best case series” can be a powerful tool to get an impression of the claimed efficiency of such procedures.
“Best case analysis” means processing and reviewing clinical documentations of “best cases” presented by their therapists using internationally accepted criteria. Since 1985 we had the opportunity to perform 5 such studies on unconventional cancer therapies, 4 of whom comprising the history of 132 patients could be completed. All methods examined were publicly claimed as antineoplastic effective and had been applied to hundreds or even thousands of patients.
Although in a few cases a favorable course of the disease could be registered, the results as a whole were disappointing and did not provide evidence of a relevant antineoplastic effect of the investigated methods. This disagreeing judgment was mainly due to a) obviously false assessments of cancer remission, b) using irrelevant parameters for the recording of the disease course and c) treatment in an adjuvant situation or in addition to established therapies.
Everyday practice alone is obviously not sufficient for the scientifically valid assessment of a therapeutic strategy. When feasible, best case analyses are useful for screening unconventional therapies.
