Controls for acupuncture studies improving. Their results are not. How are peer reviewers reacting?

[HuckleB]

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/acupuncture_real_or_sham/

"Several members of my family have tried acupuncture and had great results. My mom quit smoking; my stepfather’s bad back improved. You’ve probably heard similar stories from friends or family. You might even have had success with acupuncture yourself.

Yet the science behind acupuncture is dubious. It’s difficult to properly control an acupuncture study because its practitioners—and those receiving treatment—are heavily invested in the results. In a Norwegian study of acupuncture as treatment for hot flashes during menopause, 80 out of 535 volunteers dropped out because they were randomly assigned to the “no treatment” group. As Euan Lawson, a general practitioner in Cumbria, UK, explained in his analysis of the research, acupuncture is quite popular in Norway, with nearly a third of the population having received the treatment at some point in their lifetimes. With this level of popular acceptance of acupuncture, it’s no wonder that a small apparent benefit was found: The women who received acupuncture reported experiencing slightly fewer hot flashes than those who remained in the randomly assigned “self-treatment” group. This result is easily explained as a placebo effect: The women and their practitioners both want the treatment to work and believe it will, so therefore it does, albeit only very slightly.

...

So, one might ask, if this research has so many limitations, how does it get published at all? Doesn’t it get subjected to peer review? The answer, of course, is that it does, but peer review isn’t perfect. One report this year suggested that many of the greatest scientific discoveries in history wouldn’t have made it through peer review (though Anne-Marie Deitering’s blog post about the article disputes that notion). Another demonstrates that reviewers themselves are biased. It may be better to consider peer review a baseline: Peer-reviewed work is usually serious science, worthy at least of more discussion and investigation. But a single peer-reviewed work doesn’t confirm a finding as permanent scientific truth—it’s a starting point for an ever-evolving conversation.

And in the case of the acupuncture research, what seems to be most important to reviewers is continuing the discussion of what’s still a commonly accepted practice, regardless of how difficult to design the experiments are.

..."


--------------------------------------

Repetitive pilot studies comparing acupuncture to already fairly dubious treatments aside, this is the state of the literature in terms of efficacy for acupuncture. Then again, a full look at those pilot studies (in regard to hot flashes, but also other areas) shows that the single study that compared acupuncture to that fairly dubious treatment (venlafaxine) is far outweighed by other studies.

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=3314

:hi:

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[HuckleB]

3. It's quite disturbing to see the way science is treated at DU.

This thread is unrecommended, while threads pushing preliminary trials on acupuncture are recommended ad nauseum, despite the reality that those single trials are outweighed on evidence by other trials.

One of the biggest complaints about the Bush administration was its ridiculous treatment of science, but Bush is now gone, and science is not treated any better at DU than it was under Bush.

This is disturbing, at best.

[HuckleB]

2. Placebo effect seen in acupuncture studies

http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKCOL76690720070627

Once in a while, even the mainstream media gets it right.

[Celebration]

4. It makes me very happy that acupuncture has a large placebo effect

Because a large placebo effect relieves people's suffering--which, btw, is the ultimate goal of a health care treatment.

[HuckleB]

5. Whenever you're in a corner, you run to that routine.

Of course, you also try to run to the single, preliminary study, while ignoring the full view of similar studies in order to pretend that there is more to it than placebo.

You want to spin and turn and twist in every direction, no matter how contradictory, to push a blind agenda.

The ethics of placebos are not so black and white, but you don't really care about that.

This is all about defending your blind faith.

Besides, if you are so hot on the placebo effect of acupuncture/sham acupuncture/no needle at all acupuncture, why aren't you up in arms that the practitioners of acupuncture are charging so much for it. Since the needles don't matter, and the points don't matter, shouldn't we dump the practitioners and just sell fake needles to people to give to themselves?

[Celebration]

6. you can't have it both ways!!

I hear all the time that it is ridiculous that reiki practitioners only have a week of training. Too little training!! Now I hear that it is ridiculous that acupuncturists have a lot of training.

What is the goal of a health care treatment? The goal it to make the most people feel better, or be cured. It is not the goal of a health care treatment to prove it is better than its own placebo. The patient only wants to get better.

Acupuncturists can charge what the market will bear, just like auto mechanics and personal trainers. My acupuncturist charges less than most personal trainers.

[HuckleB]

7. Wow!

As usual, you don't respond to the content of my post, but go off on some other road in order to ignore my point altogether.

Auto mechanics actually fix things, btw.

[Celebration]

8. As usual

You are making no sense at all. But go ahead rambling on and on about the large placebo effect of acupuncture, which I readily admit and celebrate.

[HuckleB]

9. Now that is funny!

:rofl: