Responses

This article has a correction. Please see:

A 6-year comparative economic evaluation of healthcare costs and mortality rates of Dutch patients from conventional and CAM GPs
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g. higgs-boson@gmail.com
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests

PLEASE NOTE:

  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    NCCAM

    CAM includes both complementary and alternative practices. Alternative practices, by definition, either have not been proven to work, or have been proven not to work. Complementary practices have always been mainstream and many are evidence-based. There is no sound scientific or medical justification for analysing the two together. Alternative practitioners may prefer them to be considered together, as this may provide...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    Does CAM training for GPs really reduce healthcare costs?

    I read with interest the recent contribution from Baars and Kooreman [1]. The present study is a replication of a previous study, using a different data set, as described by the authors in their introduction. The 2012 study by Kooreman and Baars [2] garnered criticism from me and others [3-5]. Furthermore, the new study was also presented in an earlier form [6], and this also faced criticism [7,8]. Baars and Kooreman provid...

    Show More
    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.