PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Patricia M Herman
AU  - Beth L Poindexter
AU  - Claudia M Witt
AU  - David M Eisenberg
TI  - Are complementary therapies and integrative care cost-effective? A systematic review of economic evaluations
AID  - 10.1136/bmjopen-2012-001046
DP  - 2012 Jan 01
TA  - BMJ Open
PG  - e001046
VI  - 2
IP  - 5
4099  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/5/e001046.short
4100  - http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/5/e001046.full
SO  - BMJ Open2012 Jan 01; 2
AB  - Objective A comprehensive systematic review of economic evaluations of complementary and integrative medicine (CIM) to establish the value of these therapies to health reform efforts. Data sources PubMed, CINAHL, AMED, PsychInfo, Web of Science and EMBASE were searched from inception through 2010. In addition, bibliographies of found articles and reviews were searched, and key researchers were contacted. Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Studies of CIM were identified using criteria based on those of the Cochrane complementary and alternative medicine group. All studies of CIM reporting economic outcomes were included. Study appraisal methods All recent (and likely most cost-relevant) full economic evaluations published 2001–2010 were subjected to several measures of quality. Detailed results of higher-quality studies are reported. Results A total of 338 economic evaluations of CIM were identified, of which 204, covering a wide variety of CIM for different populations, were published 2001–2010. A total of 114 of these were full economic evaluations. And 90% of these articles covered studies of single CIM therapies and only one compared usual care to usual care plus access to multiple licensed CIM practitioners. Of the recent full evaluations, 31 (27%) met five study-quality criteria, and 22 of these also met the minimum criterion for study transferability (‘generalisability’). Of the 56 comparisons made in the higher-quality studies, 16 (29%) show a health improvement with cost savings for the CIM therapy versus usual care. Study quality of the cost-utility analyses (CUAs) of CIM was generally comparable to that seen in CUAs across all medicine according to several measures, and the quality of the cost-saving studies was slightly, but not significantly, lower than those showing cost increases (85% vs 88%, p=0.460). Conclusions This comprehensive review identified many CIM economic evaluations missed by previous reviews and emerging evidence of cost-effectiveness and possible cost savings in at least a few clinical populations. Recommendations are made for future studies.