To explore the strengths and weaknesses of conventional biomedical research strategies and methods as applied to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM), and to suggest a new research framework for assessing these treatment modalities. There appears to be a gap between published studies showing little or no efficacy of CAM, and reports of substantial clinical benefit from patients and CAM practitioners. This "gap" might be partially due to the current focus on placebo-controlled randomized trials, which are appropriately designed to answer questions about the efficacy and safety of pharmaceutical agents. In an attempt to fit this assessment strategy, complex CAM treatment approaches have been dissected into standardized and often simplified treatment methods, and outcomes have been limited. Unlike conventional medicine, CAM has no regulatory or financial gatekeeper controlling their therapeutic "agents" before they are marketed. Treatments may thus be in widespread use before researchers know of their existence. In addition, the treatments are often provided as an integrated 'whole system' of care, without careful consideration of the safety issue. We propose a five-phase strategy for assessing CAM built on the acknowledgement of the inherent, unique aspects of CAM treatments and their regulatory status in most Western countries. These phases comprise: 1. Context, paradigms, philosophical understanding and utilization 2. Safety status 3. Comparative effectiveness. 4. Component efficacy 5. Biological mechanisms. Context, paradigms, philosophical understanding and utilization Safety status Comparative effectiveness. Component efficacy Biological mechanisms. Using the proposed strategy will generate evidence relevant to clinical practice, while acknowledging the absence of regulatory and financial gatekeepers for CAM. It will also emphasize the important but subtle differences between CAM and conventional medical practice.

Intentional use of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) has previously only been researched in small, possibly biased, samples. There seems to be a lack of scientific information regarding healthy individual’s attitudes and presumed use of CAM. The aim of this study is to describe prevalence and characteristics of participants who intend to see a CAM provider compared to participants who intend to see a medical doctor (MD) only when suffering from a chronic, non- life-threatening disease and in the need of treatment. Further to describe differences between the groups regarding expected reasons for CAM use and expected skills of CAM providers. The survey was conducted in January 2016 as part of the “TNS Gallup Health policy Barometer”. In total, 1728 individuals aged 16–92 years participated in the study, constituting an overall response rate of 47%. The survey included questions regarding opinions and attitudes towards health, health services and health politics in Norway. The majority of the participants (90.2%) would see a MD only if they were suffering from a chronic, non- life-threatening disease and were in the need of treatment. Men over the age of 60 with a university education tended to see a MD only. Only 9.8% of all respondents would in addition visit a CAM provider. Being an intentional user of a MD + CAM provider was associated with being a woman under the age of 60. The respondents believed that CAM providers have professional competence based on formal training in CAM. They also believed that individuals seeing a CAM provider have poor health and are driven by the hope of being cured. Further, that they have heard that others have good experience with such treatment. Intentional use of CAM is associated with positive attitudes, trustworthiness, and presumed positive experiences in the CAM-patient-setting. Intentional CAM users also have the impression that CAM providers have professional competence based on formal training in alternative therapies.

Due to limitations of conventional medicine for atopic eczema (AE), complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) is widely used as an alternative, maintaining, or simultaneous treatment for AE. We aimed to evaluate the beneficial and harmful effects of CAM for children with AE under 14 years old. We searched for randomized trials on CAM in 12 Chinese and English databases from their inception to May 2018. We included children (< 14 years) diagnosed with AE, who received CAM therapy alone or combined with conventional medicine. We extracted data, and used the Cochrane “Risk of bias” tool to assess methodological quality. Effect was presented as relative risk (RR) or mean difference (MD) with 95% confidence interval (CI) using RevMan 5.3. Twenty-four randomized controlled trials involving 2233 children with AE were included. Methodological quality was of unclear or high risk of bias in general. The trials tested 5 different types of CAM therapies, including probiotics, diet, biofilm, borage oil, and swimming. Compared to placebo, probiotics showed improved effect for the SCORAD index (MD 9.01, 95% CI 7.12–10.90; n = 5). For symptoms and signs such as itching, skin lesions, CAM combined with usual care was more effective for symptom relief ≥95% (RR 1.47, 95% CI 1.30–1.68; n = 8), and for ≥50% symptoms improvement (RR 1.34, 1.25–1.45; n = 9) compared to usual care. There was no statistic significant difference between CAM and usual care on ≥95% improvement or ≥ 50% improvement of symptoms. However, swimming, diet and biofilm showed improvement of clinical symptoms compared with usual care. At follow-up of 8 weeks to 3 years, CAM alone or combined with usual care showed lower relapse rate (RR 0.38, 0.28–0.51, n = 2; RR 0.31, 0.24–0.40, n = 7; respectively) compared to usual care. Twelve out of 24 trials reported no occurrence of severe adverse events. Low evidence demonstrates that some CAM modalities may improve symptoms of childhood AE and reduce relapse rate. Safety remains unclear due to insufficient reporting. Further well-designed randomized trials are needed to confirm the potential beneficial effect and to establish safety use.

Introduction: Freezing cold injuries (FCI) are a common risk in extreme cold weather operations. Although the risks have long been recognised, injury occurrences tend to be sparse and geographically distributed, with relatively few cases to study in a systematic way. The first challenge to improve FCI medical management is to develop a common nomenclature for FCI classification. This is critical for the development of meaningful epidemiological reports on the magnitude and severity of FCI, for the standardisation of patient inclusion criteria for treatment studies, and for the development of clinical diagnosis and treatment algorithms. Methodology: A scoping review of the literature using PubMed and cross-checked with Google Scholar, using search terms related to freezing cold injury and frostbite, highlighted a paucity of published clinical papers and little agreement on classification schemes. Results: A total of 74 papers were identified, and 28 were included in the review. Published reports and studies can be generally grouped into four different classification schemes that are based on (1) injury morphology; (2) signs and symptoms; (3) pathophysiology; and (4) clinical outcome. The nomenclature in the different classification systems is not coherent and the discrete classification limits are not evidence based. Conclusions: All the classification systems are necessary and relevant to FCI medical management for sustainment of soldier health and performance in cold weather operations and winter warfare. Future FCI reports should clearly characterise the nature of the FCI into existing classification schemes for surveillance (morphology, symptoms, and appearance), identifying risk-factors, clinical guidelines, and agreed inclusion/exclusion criteria for a future treatment trial.

Exposure to cold climate is an inevitable consequence of military training in Norway. Adequate peripheral microcirculation in the extremities is important to maintain temperature, and to protect against freezing cold injuries. The aim of this study was to investigate the variability in skin rewarming ability. The study subjects consisted of 260 healthy Norwegian army conscripts, following a mild cold provocation test (hands immersed in 20°C water for 1 min) using dynamic infrared thermography (DIRT). Thermal images were obtained to investigate any differences in skin rewarming ability of the hand (fingers). DIRT took place under standardised and stable study conditions. Conscripts were characterised as either slow, intermediate or rapid rewarmers. While 90% could recover, partially or completely, within 4 min to the skin temperature values before the provocation test, 10% showed a slow rewarming pattern. In the slow rewarmers, the rewarming ability was correlated with a low average temperature of the hands prior to the cooling test. The healthy young army conscripts in this study showed a large variability in their rewarming ability following a standardised mild cold provocation test.

Objective To test the feasibility of research on acupuncture and acupressure for children undergoing tonsillectomy and/or adenoidectomy. Methods During January and February 2008, 20 patients from the ordinary waiting list at Lovisenberg Diakonale Hospital in Oslo were randomised to either acupuncture while under anaesthesia or standard care as control. The authors gave acupuncture at Pericardium 6 (P6) at a depth of approximately 0.7 cm on both forearms. The needles were removed when the patient was transferred to the recovery unit and replaced with acupressure wristbands. The outcome measure in the pilot study was to explore if acupuncture and acupressure could be implemented without extending the anaesthesia time and surgical time. This pilot study also tested the feasibility of the research protocol for future investigation in the field, with postoperative nausea, vomiting and retching as the primary end points for effect. Results The study showed no delay in the surgical procedure and no additional anaesthesia time attributable to the introduction of acupuncture. The protocol was found to be feasible with regard to performance of the main study. Vomiting occurred in five patients in the treatment group and 10 patients in the control group. The total numbers of vomiting events were 13 in the treatment group and 19 in the control group. Conclusion The results encouraged performance of the main study according to the research protocol.