No way to treat a friend: lifting the lid on complementary and alternative veterinary medicine. N Taylor and A Gough. 5m Publishing, 2017. 392 pages. Price £14.95. ISBN 9781910455913.

2019 ◽  
Vol 97 (4) ◽  
pp. 121-121
Author(s):  
T Stephens
Keyword(s):  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

scholarly journals A Systematic Review of Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine: “Miscellaneous Therapies”

Animals ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (12) ◽  
pp. 3356
Author(s):  
Anna Bergh ◽  
Iréne Lund ◽  
Anna Boström ◽  
Heli Hyytiäinen ◽  
Kjell Asplund
Keyword(s):  
Veterinary Medicine ◽  
Clinical Efficacy ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Scientific Quality ◽  
Neural Therapy ◽  
Gold Therapy ◽  
Study Characteristics ◽  
Complementary And Alternative

There is an increasing interest in complementary and alternative veterinary medicine (CAVM). There is, however, an uncertainty of the efficacy of these methods. Therefore, the aim of this systematic literature review is to assess the evidence for clinical efficacy of 24 CAVM therapies used in cats, dogs, and horses. A bibliographic search, restricted to studies in cats, dogs, and horses, was performed on Web of Science Core Collection, CABI, and PubMed. Relevant articles were assessed for scientific quality, and information was extracted on study characteristics, species, type of treatment, indication, and treatment effects. Of 982 unique publications screened, 42 were eligible for inclusion, representing nine different CAVM therapies, which were aromatherapy, gold therapy, homeopathy, leeches (hirudotherapy), mesotherapy, mud, neural therapy, sound (music) therapy, and vibration therapy. For 15 predefined therapies, no study was identified. The risk of bias was assessed as high in 17 studies, moderate to high in 10, moderate in 10, low to moderate in four, and low in one study. In those studies where the risk of bias was low to moderate, there was considerable heterogeneity in reported treatment effects. Therefore, the scientific evidence is not strong enough to define the clinical efficacy of the 24 CAVM therapies.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document