The Pharmaceutical Journal Vol 267 No 7177 815-819
8 December 2001

This page
Reprint
Photocopy

  Remuneration
  Mistletoe
  Community Pharmacy
  Medicines Compendium
  PPIs
  The Society

Letters to the Editor

Mistletoe

Report was not misleading

From Dr J. Barnes, MRPharmS

Professor Ernst correctly points out (PJ, 1 December, p780) that the article to which he refers was a report of a conference session on mistletoe,1 yet remarks that pharmacists may have been led to believe that mistletoe is an effective cancer treatment.

A conference report is not, and cannot be expected to be, a critical and up-to-date review of the literature; it merely reports accurately on what was said by the speakers at a meeting. Nevertheless, the report in question goes beyond its remit; it states that a high-quality trial included in the systematic review mentioned2 found no difference between mistletoe and placebo, and refers to the (poor) methodological quality of other included studies. Further, the report states that one of the speakers did not consider the limitations of a cohort study he described as evidence for the effects of mistletoe.1

My view is that pharmacists understand the confines of a meeting report, and that readers of this particular report would not be misled.

Jo Barnes
Centre for Pharmacognosy and Phytotherapy
School of Pharmacy, University of London

References

1. Barnes J. Complementary medicines and the treatment of cancer. Pharm J 2001; 267:515–6.
2. Kleijnen J, Knipschild P. Mistletoe treatment for cancer. Review of controlled trials in humans. Phytomedicine 1994;1:255–60.

Back to Top

Previous Topic (Remuneration)
Next Topic (Community pharmacy)
Send your letter to The Editor