Search

Copyright of Research in Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin is the property of Karger AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Deutsches Ärzteblatt International is the property of Deutscher Aerzte-Verlag GmbH and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Research in Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin is the property of Karger AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Research in Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin is the property of Karger AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Research in Complementary Medicine / Forschende Komplementärmedizin is the property of Karger AG and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Pflanzliche Arzneimittel haben in der medizinischen Versorgung im deutschsprachigen Raum eine lange Tradition, werden aber bei der Erstellung medizinischer Leitlinien selten berücksichtigt. In einer Vorstudie wurde von unserer Arbeitsgruppe aufgearbeitet, in welchem Ausmaß sie in den aktuellen interdisziplinär, evidenz- und konsensusbasiert erstellten S3-Leitlinien der Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF) Beachtung gefunden haben. Ziel der jetzigen Studie war es, zu analysieren, inwieweit Neben- bzw. Wechselwirkungen von pflanzlichen Arzneimitteln in diesen S3-Leitlinien diskutiert werden. Im Januar 2015 wurden 134 S3-Leitlinien gezählt und analysiert. 27,6% (n = 37) weisen insgesamt 194 Statements unter dem Begriff «Phytotherapie» auf. Hinweise zu Neben- und Wechselwirkungen finden sich in 28,4% der Statements (n = 55), die bei 13,9% (n = 27) durch Literatur belegt werden. 14 dieser Statements betreffen Nahrungsergänzungsmittel und Ähnliches, 11 sind pauschale Aussagen zur Phytotherapie, 7 fassen mindestens 2 Arzneipflanzen pauschal zusammen. Damit weisen nur 23 Statements auf Neben- bzw. Wechselwirkungen von einzelnen Arzneipflanzen hin, 14 davon sind mit Literaturstellen belegt. Diese Ergebnisse entsprechen bei Weitem nicht den geforderten Standards der AWMF. Dafür verantwortlich sind insbesondere unpräzise Begrifflichkeiten sowie eine unzureichende Systematik bei der Suche nach wissenschaftlicher Evidenz für die Unbedenklichkeit von Arzneipflanzen-Zubereitungen. Die Gesellschaft für Phytotherapie kann hier einen wichtigen Beitrag zur Qualitätsverbesserung leisten., (© 2016 S. Karger GmbH, Freiburg.)

Herbal medicine is a promising alternative in the treatment of acute rhinosinusitis (ARS). We performed a systematic review for phytopharmaceutical treatments of ARS. A computerized search of databases (Cochrane Library, PubMed, and Scopus) up to 16 September 2015 was performed. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and controlled trials (CTs) were included and assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Seven trials on Pelargonium sidoides (EPs 7630, Umckaloabo®), Myrtol (GeloMyrtol® forte), BNO 1016 (Sinupret® extract), BNO 101 (Sinupret®), Cyclamen europaeum (Nasodren®), and Esberitox® were included. Risk of bias was heterogeneous. EPs 7630 appeared to be useful in the treatment of ARS. Myrtol showed benefits against a placebo compound, and BNO 1016 and BNO 101 might be helpful; however, there was little evidence for the effectiveness of Cyclamen europaeum and Esberitox®. Herbal medicine might be effective for the treatment of ARS, but given the low number of clinical trials and the heterogeneous methodological quality, further research is necessary., (© 2016 S. Karger GmbH, 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.

Background: The cupping massage is a form of bloodless cupping. This type of cupping is particularly used to treat muscular tension and musculoskeletal pain, such as chronic neck pain; however the data records on mechanisms and potential side effects are not satisfactory., Case Report: In a study on the effectiveness of cupping massage in patients with chronic neck pain, one patient showed a formation of a lipoma in the cupping area after the first treatment session., Conclusion: Because of the short time interval between therapy and development of the lipoma, a primary cause is not realistic. This adverse event has not been described in the literature before, and the present report describes the case in summary.