Talk:Complementary Medicine Evaluation Programme

POV

This article needs serious cleanup - it is bristling with POV. --David.Mestel 17:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I had a go at it in June 2007, but as I said then, it still needs work. Unfortunately for me, I don't read German; the only English Language information on the PEK that I have found is the 2006 Peter Fisher article. (However, I find his 1994 article "Complementary medicine in Europe" interesting reading.) Pdfpdf 07:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8038643&dopt=Citation

I would say that recent efforts by a number of people have achieved the needed "serious cleanup", and the various POV are now attributed to their sources. Pdfpdf 15:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September edits by anonymous users

We have the makings of an Edit War here, so let's stop it before it becomes one.

There's quite a string of edits - 4 anonymous editors, a Bot, Jmcw37 and Pdfpdf:

71.193.193.109 - 1 edit - leaves explanation: correct spelling error
85.3.158.94 - 3 edits - no explanation

Adds unreferenced/unsupported statement:

The actual collection of field data was, however, not started before Sept 2002 and data collection and scientific evaluation required only a fraction of the originally available financial resources. Most of available resources were spent on finding consensus and on how to organize the project prior to the actually performed field studies and literature reviews.

Deletes the referenced/supported statement:

With complementary medicine, the total annual costs are markedly lower than the average for conventional care. Overall, however, complementary practitioners treat fewer patients, and more frequently younger and female patients. Adjusted for these factors, the

Pdfpdf - 1 compound edit - leaves explanation: (a) Asks for evidence (b) Resurects deleted text as a hidden comment.
Bot
85.3.37.158 - 1 edit - no explanation - puts in vague reference: "(see final PEK Report)"

(I examined the PEK Report (yet again). I couldn't find this statement.)

Jmcw37 - reverted the vague reference. (Presumably couldn't find the statement either.)
Jmcw37 - decided POV creeping in - reverted back to version after the 27 Aug spelling correction.
85.1.238.203 - 1 compound edit - no explanation
- Deleted a valid reference
- Added a new statement very similar to previous statement.
- Says "According to PEK Report", but as was previously the case, the statement still isn't in the report.
- Added reference to the "Evaluation" report; the statement most certainly is not in that report either.
- Took a statement that is a direct quote from the PEK Report and changed it into a statement with the opposite meaning.
Jmcw37 tried to improve the situation thus created.
Pdfpdf says: "No, it's too far gone. Let's go back to 27 August, and discuss it here on this talk page.

Pdfpdf 11:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

85.3.158.94, 85.3.37.158 and 85.1.238.203 are all from the same dial-in internet provider. It could be one user. jmcw 14:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  * more edits are required ... ******

The current introduction is misleading and implies that 7 million CHF were spent on a few literature reviews and on a field study that lasted only two years. Pages 19-21 of the PEK final report provide a description of the project organization, including a notion of fundamental conflicts among experts and a list of organizational difficulties. In addition, a time table from 1998 to 2005 shows how resources were distributed across time. Given these information the first paragraph of the page should be complemented as follows:

“According to the final PEK Report, four years of project time (1998-2002) were needed to find consensus among experts on how to organize the project and for the same reasons the concept of the economic evaluation was not finalized before Oct. 2003. Literature reviews and field studies could therefore not be initiated before Sept 2002 and required consequently only a fraction of the originally available resources (pages 19-21 of the final PEK report). “

The text describing the results of the economic evaluations is suggestive and implies that complementary medicine is cheaper then conventional procedures. However, overall treatment costs of complementary physicians were simply lower because they were treating fewer and younger, cost favorable patients. A paper listed on the website of the Swiss Federal Office of Health provides a more in depth analysis of this issue and based on these findings the text needs to be changed:

“The results of economic evaluations indicated no significant differences between complementary and conventional primary care for the overall treatment cost per patient. However, complementary practitioners treated lower numbers of patients and had a more cost-favorable patient population than conventional physicians. Additional analyses aimed at differences in cost structure reflected more patient-centred and individualized treatment modalities in complementary medicine.”

Additional text changes, also based on scientific data listed on the website of the Swiss Federal Office of Health are required the section describing part 1 of the project:

“…. These patients tend to have a favorable attitude towards complementary medicine and to exhibit chronic and rated the severity of their diseases as more severe. However, generic general health assessments were not different between patient groups. Technical diagnostic …”

… and

"…. On the basis of the statistics produced by the PEK, the question of whether complementary medicine should be regarded as being utilized in addition to or, rather, instead of conventional care cannot be definitively answered. However, additional research in this context provided empirical evidence that patients of complementary physicians were requiring more physician-based medical services than users of conventional medicine although indicators of general health were comparable between patient groups. Inappropriate utilization of health related resources of patients consulting complementary practices could not be excluded and it remained therefore debatable whether an inclusion of complementary in basic Swiss health insurance would be cost neutral”