UK researchers explored whether or not the present framework for economic evaluation fits CAM and what modifications if any are needed for its application. A comprehensive search of four databases was undertaken (NHS Economic Evaluation Database, Amed, Medline and Cinahl). Studies were included if they took the form of a comparative analysis of costs and consequences of a CAM treatment and were written in English. Each study was reviewed using a set of methodological questions to judge their quality as economic evaluations. A total of 19 studies were identified, of which nine were cost-effectiveness studies, seven were cost-consequence studies, two were cost-minimisation studies and one was a cost-benefit analysis. Seventeen of the studies involved CAM treatments being used alongside mainstream or conventional treatments. The majority of the treatments aimed to alleviate pain, including chronic pain, back pain, neck pain and migraine. Only a small minority of studies addressed wider outcomes of particular relevance to CAM disciplines. Nine adopted a service provider perspective only, seven included wider sickness absence costs and three included patient costs. Only one study included costs to relatives. The quality of the cost and benefit dimensions of the studies was mixed.