Integrative Medicine Research: Quality, Funding and Conflicts of Interest
Who pays for and runs integrative and naturopathic research, what studies show about bias, spin and publication, and how to weigh funding and conflicts of interest.
Content last updated . This page has not been medically reviewed.
This page is information only and does not replace medical care. If someone has chest pain, stroke signs or a severe allergic reaction, call 911 in the United States.
Who funds the research
In the United States the main public funder devoted to this area is the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health (NCCIH), part of the National Institutes of Health. It describes itself as the federal government's lead agency for scientific research on complementary and integrative health approaches, with a mission of rigorous investigation of their usefulness and safety. [2] NCCIH lists its funding at $170.3 million for fiscal year 2024. [2] One of the trials on our whole-system trials page lists an NCCIH grant. [3]Other sponsors include universities, naturopathic colleges and their clinics, and companies that make or sell products. Several of the trials on that page came from one naturopathic college, and a research consortium of naturopathic academic clinics in four countries has been formed. [4]
What studies of research quality have found
Critics and supporters both publish reviews of quality. Each of the findings below is about a specific kind of research, and none is a verdict on all integrative medicine.| Question | What a study found | Applies to |
|---|---|---|
| Does the sponsor's product tend to look better? | In a Cochrane review of 75 papers, industry-sponsored drug and device studies more often had favorable efficacy results (risk ratio 1.27). [5] | Drugs and devices; we did not find an equivalent analysis for supplements |
| Does sponsorship always matter? | In large US heart-institute trials of drugs or supplements, industry co-sponsorship was unrelated to reporting a significant benefit. [6] | 55 large trials supported by a US heart institute |
| Are positive results published more? | Trials with significant outcomes had 2.2 to 4.7 times the odds of being fully reported. [7] | Randomized trials in general |
| Do protocols change? | 40 to 62% of trials had at least one primary outcome changed, added or left out versus the protocol. [7] | Randomized trials in general |
| Is "spin" common? | In trials with non-significant main results, 58.3% of abstract conclusions showed spin. [8] | Randomized trials published in 2006 |
| Does the country of origin matter? | All acupuncture trials from China, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan in that review were positive. [9] | A 1998 review of trials to 1995 |
Registration seems to help. In the heart-institute trials, 57% of those published before 2000 showed a benefit versus 8% after 2000, and pre-registration was strongly associated with the shift toward null findings. [6]
Quality inside integrative research
Findings differ by area. A 2026 study of 400 randomized trials of Chinese herbal medicine called their conduct and analysis generally suboptimal, though it found improvement over time. [10] An independent review of 10 randomized trials of chiropractic funded by a US center for complementary medicine research (NCCAM, the name used in that paper) found their quality frequently questionable, and the reviewers judged that criticism of the funder seemed justified for those trials. [11] It is one published view of one set of trials, not of all NCCIH work.Researchers inside the naturopathic field have their own concerns. A 2019 methods paper by authors at naturopathic colleges and universities says the research needed to evaluate naturopathic medicine may not fall under the testing of randomized trials, points to whole-system and pragmatic designs, and says practitioners should take greater responsibility for building the evidence base. [12] A scoping review of whole-system research noted that most studies were positive, a publication bias concern that is hard to assess in this field. [4]
What you can do
Ask the person advising you what evidence they rely on and whether they sell what they recommend. See questions to ask a practitioner and how to read a study. Never stop a prescribed medicine because of a single study.Frequently asked questions
Is government-funded integrative research biased?
NCCIH states its mission as rigorous scientific investigation of usefulness and safety. [2] One independent review of chiropractic trials funded by NCCAM judged criticism of that funder justified for those trials. [11] Both views are published.
Does industry funding make a study wrong?
Not automatically. A Cochrane review found industry-sponsored drug and device studies more often favorable. [5] A study of large publicly funded heart trials found industry co-sponsorship unrelated to positive results. [6]
What is publication bias?
It means significant results are more likely to be fully published than non-significant ones. [7]
Are trials by naturopathic colleges reliable?
They are research like any other and should be judged on design, size, comparison group and independent repeats. Most reviewed whole-system studies were positive, and the review's authors flagged publication bias. [4]
Where can I find a disclosure?
Look at the end of the paper for funding and competing interests. PubMed also lists author affiliations.
More details: evidence, limits and cautions
The details behind this page: cautions, limits of the evidence and where sources disagree. Open any note to read it.
Why funding and conflicts matter
Conflicts of interest to look for
- Who sells it. Authors who also sell the tested product, supplement or program have a financial stake. Disclosure statements should say so.
- Who teaches it. Authors at a school or clinic built around the approach have a professional stake. Affiliation is a reason to look for repeat studies by others, not a reason to reject a result.
- Who paid. The sponsor, any gifts of product, and whether the funder saw the data.
- Whether it was registered. A public protocol lets readers compare planned and reported outcomes.
- What the outcome was. A lab marker or a calculated risk score is not the same as fewer heart attacks, falls or hospital stays.
Cochrane's risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials checks five areas: the randomization process, deviations from the intended intervention, missing outcome data, measurement of the outcome, and selection of the reported result. [13]
References
- Evaluating Health Information, MedlinePlus. Read 2026-10-22.
- About NCCIH, National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health. Read 2026-10-22.
- Shinto L et al. A randomized pilot study of naturopathic medicine in multiple sclerosis, J Altern Complement Med 2008. Read 2026-10-22.
- Myers SP et al. The State of the Evidence for Whole-System, Multi-Modality Naturopathic Medicine: A Systematic Scoping Review, J Altern Complement Med 2019; full text also read via Europe PMC. Read 2026-10-22.
- Lundh A et al. Industry sponsorship and research outcome, Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017. Read 2026-10-22.
- Kaplan RM et al. Likelihood of Null Effects of Large NHLBI Clinical Trials Has Increased over Time, PLoS One 2015. Read 2026-10-22.
- Dwan K et al. Systematic review of the empirical evidence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias, PLoS One 2008. Read 2026-10-22.
- Boutron I et al. Reporting and interpretation of randomized controlled trials with statistically nonsignificant results for primary outcomes, JAMA 2010. Read 2026-10-22.
- Vickers A et al. Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials, Control Clin Trials 1998. Read 2026-10-22.
- Li et al. Design, Conduct, and Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials of Chinese Herbal Medicine, JAMA Netw Open 2026. Read 2026-10-22.
- Ernst E et al. An independent review of NCCAM-funded studies of chiropractic, Clin Rheumatol 2011. Read 2026-10-22.
- Schloss J et al. Lessons from Outside and Within: Exploring Advancements in Methodology for Naturopathic Medicine Clinical Research, J Altern Complement Med 2019. Read 2026-10-22.
- Higgins JPT et al. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in a randomized trial, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Read 2026-10-22.