TY - JOUR T1 - The ‘Smallwood report’: method or madness? JF - British Journal of General Practice JO - Br J Gen Pract SP - 64 LP - 65 VL - 56 IS - 522 AU - Edzard Ernst Y1 - 2006/01/01 UR - http://bjgp.org/content/56/522/64.abstract N2 - In October 2005, a report was published entitled The Role of Complementary and Alternative Medicine in the NHS.1 Its lead author is the economist Christopher Smallwood. The purpose of the report was: ‘… to examine evidence relating first to the effectiveness and then to the associated costs of mainstream complementary therapies.’In the following, I will try to briefly summarise some of its findings and shortcomings based on my personal involvement with this project.In March 2005, I was interviewed by a team of ‘Freshminds’, a London-based research consultancy. They explained to me that The Prince of Wales' Foundation for Integrated Health had commissioned them to conduct a study of the cost-effectiveness of complementary/alternative medicine (CAM). Essentially this was to be based on a series of interviews with a range of experts, mostly outspoken proponents of CAM. At my second encounter, in July 2005, (this time in the presence of Mr Smallwood), the remit had changed fundamentally. The aim, I was told, was now to review the evidence related to the cost-effectiveness of five forms of CAM. I mentioned that we had just finished such a project for the World Health Organisation,2 but they showed no interest. Their review was to be supplemented with ‘case studies’ and interviews. Mr Smallwood's plan was to submit it to UK health ministers in the hope to change health policy in Britain. He also explained that the report was no longer … ER -