{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.024526198439241916, 'fraction_numerical': 0.022296544035674472, 'mean_word_length': 4.907894736842105, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Priorities for Research in Complementary Medicine

The House of Lords' report on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) recommends that adequate research funds for CAM should be created in the UK. This raises the question about research priorities in this area. In 1996, we reported a (1995) survey of CAM researchers' views on this matter1. The same survey instrument was used again in 2000, at another international conference on CAM research (Evidence-based Complementary Medicine—State of the Evidence, Methodological Challenges, Technische Universitat, Munich, April 2000). Table 1 shows the three answers with the highest level of priority in both years. The remarkable stability of these results over 5 years suggests that assessment of efficacy and safety as well as development of research tools are true priorities for CAM research of the future. 
 
 
 
Table 1 
 
Survey responses