Phytotherapy in the German medical AWMF S3 guidelines -A systematic overview

Klose, P; Kraft, K; Cramer, H; Lauche, R; Dobos, G; Langhorst, J

Phytotherapy in the German medical AWMF S3 guidelines -A systematic overview

Klose, P Kraft, K Cramer, H

Lauche, R

Dobos, G Langhorst, J

Permalink

Publication Type:: Journal Article
Citation:: Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 2014, 21 (6), pp. 388 - 400
Issue Date:: 2014-01-01

Closed Access

	Filename	Description	Size
	Phytotherapie in den medizinischen S3-Leitlinien.pdf	Published Version	275.55 kB	Adobe PDF	View/Open

Copyright Clearance Process

Recently Added
In Progress
Closed Access

This item is closed access and not available.

Full metadata record

Field	Value	Language
dc.contributor.author	Klose, P	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Kraft, K	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Cramer, H https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3640-8046	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Lauche, R https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4171-7935	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Dobos, G	en_US
dc.contributor.author	Langhorst, J	en_US
dc.date.issued	2014-01-01	en_US
dc.identifier.citation	Forschende Komplementarmedizin, 2014, 21 (6), pp. 388 - 400	en_US
dc.identifier.issn	1661-4119	en_US
dc.identifier.uri	http://hdl.handle.net/10453/116050
dc.description.abstract	© 2014 S. Karger AG, Freiburg. In Germany, the interdisciplinary, evidence- and consensus-based medical AWMF S3 guidelines represent the highest available scientific level and have significant impact on patient care. In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, herbal medicine has a long tradition in medical care. Of notice, the evidence for its efficacy in numerous indications is increasing. This systematic review evaluates to which extent phytotherapy is taken into account in the current S3 guidelines. In all available medical AWMF S3 guidelines, the recommendations/ statements on phytotherapeutic options were identified, and 2 independent experts classified them into 3 categories: positive, negative, and open. In addition, comments on side effects and interactions were extracted. Phytotherapeutic options are specified in 40 (31.3 %) out of 128 AWMF S3 guidelines. Phytotherapy was not included in 55 guidelines (42.9%) with potential herbal therapeutic options. From 204 recommendations 139 (68.1%) are negative or remain open. In 27 guidelines (67.5%) phytotherapy is listed in the chapter for complementary and alternative medicine and/or miscellaneous, in 7 guidelines (17.5%) it is mentioned at the end of the recommendations on medical drug therapy, and in 8 guidelines (20.0%) it is listed in the recommendations regarding conventional treatments. Side effects and interactions are stated in 70 out of 204 recommendations (34.3%). Less than half of the currently available medical AWMF S3 guidelines include phytotherapy in their search strategy. Only few positive statements and recommendations on herbal medicine are taken into account. A systematic and comprehensive work up of the existing evidence on the one hand and the consequent incorporation on the other is necessary to appropriately integrate phytotherapy in the German medical guidelines.	en_US
dc.relation.ispartof	Forschende Komplementarmedizin	en_US
dc.relation.isbasedon	10.1159/000370079	en_US
dc.subject.classification	Complementary & Alternative Medicine	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Humans	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Phytotherapy	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Germany	en_US
dc.subject.mesh	Guidelines as Topic	en_US
dc.title	Phytotherapy in the German medical AWMF S3 guidelines -A systematic overview	en_US
dc.type	Journal Article
utslib.citation.volume	6	en_US
utslib.citation.volume	21	en_US
utslib.for	1104 Complementary and Alternative Medicine	en_US
pubs.embargo.period	Not known	en_US
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Faculty of Health
pubs.organisational-group	/University of Technology Sydney/Strength - CHSP - Health Services and Practice
utslib.copyright.status	closed_access
pubs.issue	6	en_US
pubs.publication-status	Published	en_US
pubs.volume	21	en_US

Abstract:

© 2014 S. Karger AG, Freiburg. In Germany, the interdisciplinary, evidence- and consensus-based medical AWMF S3 guidelines represent the highest available scientific level and have significant impact on patient care. In Germany, Austria, and Switzerland, herbal medicine has a long tradition in medical care. Of notice, the evidence for its efficacy in numerous indications is increasing. This systematic review evaluates to which extent phytotherapy is taken into account in the current S3 guidelines. In all available medical AWMF S3 guidelines, the recommendations/ statements on phytotherapeutic options were identified, and 2 independent experts classified them into 3 categories: positive, negative, and open. In addition, comments on side effects and interactions were extracted. Phytotherapeutic options are specified in 40 (31.3 %) out of 128 AWMF S3 guidelines. Phytotherapy was not included in 55 guidelines (42.9%) with potential herbal therapeutic options. From 204 recommendations 139 (68.1%) are negative or remain open. In 27 guidelines (67.5%) phytotherapy is listed in the chapter for complementary and alternative medicine and/or miscellaneous, in 7 guidelines (17.5%) it is mentioned at the end of the recommendations on medical drug therapy, and in 8 guidelines (20.0%) it is listed in the recommendations regarding conventional treatments. Side effects and interactions are stated in 70 out of 204 recommendations (34.3%). Less than half of the currently available medical AWMF S3 guidelines include phytotherapy in their search strategy. Only few positive statements and recommendations on herbal medicine are taken into account. A systematic and comprehensive work up of the existing evidence on the one hand and the consequent incorporation on the other is necessary to appropriately integrate phytotherapy in the German medical guidelines.

Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:

http://hdl.handle.net/10453/116050