David Sackett defined EBM as the "integration of best research evidence with clinical expertise and patient values." My only point here was if we only limit ourselves to just the treatments that have "Level 1" evidence then our treatment options will contain very few options. There are a lot of compilmentary and alternative therapies out there that "may" be "benefical" but just haven't been studied very well. In my own clinical decision making (physical interventions, not in the psychology area) there have been times when you design the perfect intervention, has great "evidence" of efficacy, as the clinician you are highly skilled in using it, but the treatment fails or is not likely to provide the expected "optimal" benefit because the uniqueness of the patient wasn't considered. There have also been times in my 20+ years of clinical experience where there was NO DOUBT in my mind that the treatment that the patient engaged in SHOULD NOT HAVE WORKED, was complete QUACKERY....but it worked for that patient??? Science/reason cannot explain it but the patient was MEASURABLY better. This tells me...human's haven't figure everything out yet.

As an EB Practioner, does that mean that I now recommend that treatment approach to other patients, NO! But if a patient asks me about it or if the want to try it, I don't tell them NO that will never help you. I might say...I'm very skeptical about that treatment approach. I do not believe that what they calm to be doing with "energy" fields is accurate. I tell them what I know about the treatment, maybe even that I wouldn't recommend spending $60 to try it out, maybe suggest other treatments. To me saying "There is not enough evidence available for me to support the use of that treatment." Is a lot different than saying, "That treatment is worthless and should never be considered."