Abstract Complementary medicine is becoming increasingly popular with patients and medical professionals. Randomized controlled studies are essential to gain full accreditation of this treatment modality. The aim of this essay is to review in brief the evidence-based practice in complementary medicine. Reflections on evidence-based complementary medicine Hippocrates’s theory of practising medicine depended on the assumption that physicians should treat the human body as a whole, not as parts framed together. Hippocrates presumed the blessing of humans is its capacity for natural healing and believed the proper practice of medicine is to allow medications to help the natural healing process. Besides, Hippocrates noticed that individual variations in response to disease as well as in the capacity of healing exist. The Greek philosopher (father of medicine), explaining this observation, assumed that ideas and thoughts stem from the brain. It is the difference among individuals in positive ideas and thoughts, which makes the different responses to disease and to healing. Hippocrates, thus, laid the foundations of complementary medicine (Chiappelli and others, 2006). Evidence-based medical practice has become a hot topic. The aim of this work is to review in brief, yet comprehensively, the evidence-based practice of complementary medicine. Background Evidence-based medicine is incorporating the best research data, clinical experience and knowledge and patient standards and value. The aim is to create a patient-clinician coalition to maximize both treatment response and quality of life. The need for evidence-based practice evolved because of the rapid advances in medical knowledge so standard textbooks are outdated. In other words, evidence-based medicine practice links research with practice. The roots of the argument around evidence-based practice have developed because of the following limitations, first, the lack of logical, consistent, and rational studies. Second, applying evidence to individual patients and the possible lack of skill in the interpretation and applying certain evidence may not be easy. Third, nonmedical researchers occasionally research the evidence (Jones-Harris, 2003). The term best available evidence is wide and flexible. The Australian guide to the development, implementation and evaluation of clinical practice guidelines issued by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC, 1998) classified evidence upon which patient advice is given according to level, quality, strength, and relevance. Evidence level is using the study design as a marking sign of the degree to which it cuts out preconceived notions. Quality of evidence is the inherent characteristic of the studying methods used to reduce possible bias in the study. Relevance of the study is how close the research question is to the clinical problem, while the strength of evidence expresses the value, reproducibility and how accurate the intervention effect is. The strength of evidence includes statistical data as the P-value and confidence interval; it includes also non-statistical data as exclusion clinically insignificant effects (NHMRC, 1998). The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM, 2007), defines com