MD, PhD, FMedSci, FSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

scientific misconduct

The ACUPUNCTURE NOW FOUNDATION (ANF) have recently published a document that is worth drawing your attention to. But first I should perhaps explain who the ANF are. They state that “The Acupuncture Now Foundation (ANF) was founded in 2014 by a diverse group of people from around the world who were concerned about common misunderstandings regarding acupuncture and wanted to help acupuncture reach its full potential. Our goal is to become recognized as a leader in the collection and dissemination of unbiased and authoritative information about all aspects of the practice of acupuncture.”

This, I have to admit, sounds like music to my ears! So, I studied the document in some detail – and the music quickly turned into musac.

The document which they call a ‘white paper’ promises ‘a review of the research’. Reading even just the very first sentence, my initial enthusiasm turned into bewilderment: “It is now widely accepted across health care disciplines throughout the world that acupuncture can be effective in treating such painful conditions as migraine headaches, and low back, neck and knee pain, as well as a range of painful musculoskeletal conditions.” Any review of research that starts with such a deeply uncritical and overtly promotional statement, must be peculiar (quite apart from the fact that the ANF do not seem to appreciate that back and neck pain are musculoskeletal by nature).

As I read on, my amazement grew into bewilderment. Allow me to present a few further statements from this review (together with a link to the article provided by the ANF in support and a very brief comment by myself) which I found more than a little over-optimistic, far-fetched or plainly wrong:

Male fertility, especially sperm production and motility, has also been shown to improve with acupuncture. In a recent animal study, electro-acupuncture was found to enhance germ cell proliferation. This action is believed to facilitate the recovery of sperm production (spermatogenesis) and may restore normal semen parameters in subfertile patients.

The article supplied as evidence for this statement refers to an animal experiment using a model where sperm are exposed to heat. This has almost no bearing on the clinical situation in humans and does not lend itself to any clinical conclusions regarding the treatment of sub-fertile men.

In a recent meta-analysis, researchers concluded that the efficacy of acupuncture as a stand-alone therapy was comparable to antidepressants in improving clinical response and alleviating symptom severity of major depressive disorder (MDD). Also, acupuncture was superior to antidepressants and waitlist controls in improving both response and symptom severity of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The incidence of adverse events with acupuncture was significantly lower than antidepressants.

The review provided as evidence is wide open to bias; it was criticised thus: “the authors’ findings did not reflect the evidence presented and limitations in study numbers, sample sizes and study pooling, particularly in some subgroup analyses, suggested that the conclusions are not reliable”. Moreover, we need to know that by no means all reviews of the subject confirm this positive conclusion, for instance, thisthis, or this one; all of the latter reviews are more up-to-date than the one provided by ANF. Crucially, a Cochrane review concluded that “the evidence is inconclusive to allow us to make any recommendations for depression-specific acupuncture”.

“A randomized controlled trial of acupuncture and counseling for patients presenting with depression, after having consulted their general practitioner in primary care, showed that both interventions were associated with significantly reduced depression at three months when compared to usual care alone.”

We have discussed the trial in question on this blog. It follows the infamous ‘A+B versus B’ design which cannot possibly produce a negative result.

Now, please re-read the first paragraph of this post; but be careful not to fall off your chair laughing.

There would be more (much more) to criticise in the ANF report but, I think, these examples are ENOUGH!

Let me finish by quoting from the ANF’s view on the future as cited in their new ‘white paper’: “Looking ahead, it is clear that acupuncture is poised to make significant inroads into conventional medicine. It has the potential to become a part of every hospital’s standard of care and, in fact, this is already starting to take place not only in the U.S., but internationally. The treatment is a cost-effective and safe method of relieving pain in emergency rooms, during in-patient stays and after surgery. It can lessen post-operative nausea, constipation and urinary difficulties, and have a positive impact on conditions like hypertension, anxiety and insomnia…

Driven by popular demand and a growing body of scientific evidence, acupuncture is beginning to be taken seriously by mainstream conventional medicine, which is incorporating it into holistic health programs for the good of patients and the future of health care. In order for this transition to take place most effectively, misunderstandings about acupuncture need to be addressed. We hope this white paper has helped to clarify some of those misunderstandings and encourage anyone with questions to contact the Acupuncture Now Foundation.”

My question is short and simple: IGNORANCE OR FRAUD?

 

Yesterday, I wrote about a new acupuncture trial. Amongst other things, I wanted to find out whether the author who had previously insisted I answer his questions about my view on the new NICE guideline would himself answer a few questions when asked politely. To remind you, this is what I wrote:

This new study was designed as a randomized, sham-controlled trial of acupuncture for persistent allergic rhinitis in adults investigated possible modulation of mucosal immune responses. A total of 151 individuals were randomized into real and sham acupuncture groups (who received twice-weekly treatments for 8 weeks) and a no acupuncture group. Various cytokines, neurotrophins, proinflammatory neuropeptides, and immunoglobulins were measured in saliva or plasma from baseline to 4-week follow-up.

Statistically significant reduction in allergen specific IgE for house dust mite was seen only in the real acupuncture group. A mean (SE) statistically significant down-regulation was also seen in pro-inflammatory neuropeptide substance P (SP) 18 to 24 hours after the first treatment. No significant changes were seen in the other neuropeptides, neurotrophins, or cytokines tested. Nasal obstruction, nasal itch, sneezing, runny nose, eye itch, and unrefreshed sleep improved significantly in the real acupuncture group (post-nasal drip and sinus pain did not) and continued to improve up to 4-week follow-up.

The authors concluded that acupuncture modulated mucosal immune response in the upper airway in adults with persistent allergic rhinitis. This modulation appears to be associated with down-regulation of allergen specific IgE for house dust mite, which this study is the first to report. Improvements in nasal itch, eye itch, and sneezing after acupuncture are suggestive of down-regulation of transient receptor potential vanilloid 1.

…Anyway, the trial itself raises a number of questions – unfortunately I have no access to the full paper – which I will post here in the hope that my acupuncture friend, who are clearly impressed by this paper, might provide the answers in the comments section below:

  1. Which was the primary outcome measure of this trial?
  2. What was the power of the study, and how was it calculated?
  3. For which outcome measures was the power calculated?
  4. How were the subjective endpoints quantified?
  5. Were validated instruments used for the subjective endpoints?
  6. What type of sham was used?
  7. Are the reported results the findings of comparisons between verum and sham, or verum and no acupuncture, or intra-group changes in the verum group?
  8. What other treatments did each group of patients receive?
  9. Does anyone really think that this trial shows that “acupuncture is a safe, effective and cost-effective treatment for allergic rhinitis”?

In the comments section, the author wrote: “after you have read the full text and answered most of your questions for yourself, it might then be a more appropriate time to engage in any meaningful discussion, if that is in fact your intent”, and I asked him to send me his paper. As he does not seem to have the intention to do so, I will answer the questions myself and encourage everyone to have a close look at the full paper [which I can supply on request].

  1. The myriad of lab tests were defined as primary outcome measures.
  2. Two sentences are offered, but they do not allow me to reconstruct how this was done.
  3. No details are provided.
  4. Most were quantified with a 3 point scale.
  5. Mostly not.
  6. Needle insertion at non-acupoints.
  7. The results are a mixture of inter- and intra-group differences.
  8. Patients were allowed to use conventional treatments and the frequency of this use was reported in patient diaries.
  9. I don’t think so.

So, here is my interpretation of this study:

  • It lacked power for many outcome measures, certainly the clinical ones.
  • There were hardly any differences between the real and the sham acupuncture group.
  • Most of the relevant results were based on intra-group changes, rather than comparing sham with real acupuncture, a fact, which is obfuscated in the abstract.
  • In a controlled trial fluctuations within one group must never be interpreted as caused by the treatment.
  • There were dozens of tests for statistical significance, and there seems to be no correction for multiple testing.
  • Thus the few significant results that emerged when comparing sham with real acupuncture might easily be false positives.
  • Patient-blinding seems questionable.
  • McDonald as the only therapist of the study might be suspected to have influenced his patients through verbal and non-verbal communications.

I am sure there are many more flaws, particularly in the stats, and I leave it to others to identify them. The ones I found are, however, already serious enough, in my view, to call for a withdrawal of this paper. Essentially, the authors seem to have presented a study with largely negative findings as a trial with positive results showing that acupuncture is an effective therapy for allergic rhinitis. Subsequently, McDonald went on social media to inflate his findings even more. One might easily ask: is this scientific misconduct or just poor science?

I would be most interested to hear what you think about it [if you want to see the full article, please send me an email].

“Conflicts of interest should always be disclosed.”

This is what I wrote in the ‘RULES’ of this blog when I first started it almost 4 years ago. Sadly, very few people writing comments observe this rule. Perhaps, I just thought, I did not observe it either? So, here are my conflicts of interest: none.

Not true!!! I hear some people say. But it is!

I have no financial interest in any ‘Big Pharma’ or  ‘TINY CAM’, and I get not a penny for writing this blog.

How do I pay for my living? Mind your own business… well, on second thought, even that must not be a secret: I get a small pension and have some savings.

Still not convinced?

Perhaps it’s time to define what ‘conflicts of interests’ are. According to Wikipedia, they can be defined as  situations in which a person or organization is involved in multiple interests, financial interest, or otherwise, one of which could possibly corrupt the motivation of the individual or organization.

So, not having financial benefits from my current work does not necessarily mean that I have no conflicts of interest. The above definitions vaguely mentions ‘or otherwise’ – and that could be important. What could this mean in the context of this blog?

Well, I might have very strong beliefs, for instance (for instance, very strong beliefs that acupuncture is by definition nonsense [see below]). We all know that strong beliefs can corrupt motivation (and a lot more). And if I ask myself, do you have strong beliefs?, I have to say: Yes, absolutely!

I believe that:

  • good evidence is a prerequisite for progress in healthcare,
  • good evidence must be established by rigorous research,
  • we should not tolerate double standards in healthcare,
  • patients deserve to be treated with the best available treatments,
  • making therapeutic claims that are not supported by sound evidence is wrong.

These strong beliefs might make me biased in the eyes of many who comment on this blog. In Particular, we recently had a bunch of acupuncturists who went on the rampage attacking me personally the best they could. However, a rational analysis of my beliefs can hardly produce evidence for bias against anything other than the promotion of unproven therapies to the unsuspecting public.

The above mentioned acupuncturists seem to think that I have always been against acupuncture for the sake of being against acupuncture. However, this is not true. The proof for this statement is very simple: I have published quite a bit of articles that concluded positively – even (WOULD YOU BELIEVE IT?) about acupuncture for back pain! A prominently published meta-analysis of 2005 (with me as senior author) concluded:  “Acupuncture effectively relieves chronic low back pain.” (This of course was 11 years ago when the evidence was, in fact, positive; today, this seems to have changed – just like the NICE guidelines [probably not a coincidence!])

Conflicts of interest? No, not on my side, I think.

But what about the ‘other side’?

The unruly horde of acupuncturists (no, this is not an ad hominem attack, it’s a fact) who recently made dozens of ad hominem attacks against me, what about them?

  • They earn their money with acupuncture.
  • They have invested in acupuncture training often for long periods of time.
  • They have invested in practice equipment etc.
  • Some of them sell books on acupuncture.
  • Others run courses.
  • And all of them very clearly and demonstrably  have strong beliefs about acupuncture.

I think the latter point constitutes by far the most important conflict of interest in this context.

And this is where the somewhat trivial story has an unexpected twist and gets truly bizarre:

I have just leant that the same group of conflicted acupuncturists are now planning to publicly attack the panel of experts responsible for drafting the NICE guidelines. The reason? They feel that this panel had significant conflicts of interest that led them to come out against acupuncture.

Perhaps I should mention that I was not a member of this group, but I suspect that some of its members might have links to the pharmaceutical industry. It is almost impossible to find top experts in any area of medicine who do not have such links. You either gather experts with potential conflicts of interest, or you get non-experts without them. Would that bias them against acupuncture or any other alternative therapy? I very much doubt it.

What I do not doubt for a minute is that conflicts of interest are of major importance in these discussions. And by that I mean the more than obvious (but nevertheless undeclared) conflicts of interest of the acupuncturists. It seems that those with the strongest conflicts of interest shout the loudest about the non-existent or irrelevant conflict of interest of those who do not happen to share their quasi-religious belief in acupuncture.

While over on my post about the new NICE GUIDELINES on acupuncture for back pain, the acupuncturists’ assassination attempts of my character, competence, integrity and personality are in full swing, I have decided to employ my time more fruitfully and briefly comment on a new piece of acupuncture research.

This new Italian study was to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture for the management of hot flashes in women with breast cancer.

A total of 190 women with breast cancer were randomly assigned to two groups. Random assignment was performed with stratification for hormonal therapy; the allocation ratio was 1:1. Both groups received a booklet with information about climacteric syndrome and its management to be followed for at least 12 weeks. In addition, the acupuncture group received 10 traditional acupuncture treatment sessions involving needling of predefined acupoints.

The primary outcome was hot flash score at the end of treatment (week 12), calculated as the frequency multiplied by the average severity of hot flashes. The secondary outcomes were climacteric symptoms and quality of life, measured by the Greene Climacteric and Menopause Quality of Life scales. Health outcomes were measured for up to 6 months after treatment. Expectation and satisfaction of treatment effect and safety were also evaluated. We used intention-to-treat analyses.

Of the participants, 105 were randomly assigned to enhanced self-care and 85 to acupuncture plus enhanced self-care. Acupuncture plus enhanced self-care was associated with a significantly lower hot flash score than enhanced self-care at the end of treatment (P < .001) and at 3- and 6-month post-treatment follow-up visits (P = .0028 and .001, respectively). Acupuncture was also associated with fewer climacteric symptoms and higher quality of life in the vasomotor, physical, and psychosocial dimensions (P < .05).

The authors concluded that acupuncture in association with enhanced self-care is an effective integrative intervention for managing hot flashes and improving quality of life in women with breast cancer.

This hardly needs a comment, as I have been going on about this study design many times before: the ‘A+B versus B’ design can only produce positive findings. Any such study concluding that ‘acupuncture (or whatever other intervention) is effective’ can therefore not be a legitimate test of a hypothesis and ought to be categorised as pseudo-science. Sadly, this problem seems more the rule than the exception in the realm of acupuncture research. That’s a pity really… because, if there is potential in acupuncture at all, this sort of thing can only distract from it.

I think the JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, its editors and reviewers, should be ashamed of having published such misleading rubbish.

Edzard Ernst – why he changed his mind! This is the title of a blog which I just found. It is such fun to read that I must show it to you in full [I added a few numbered footnotes in square brackets]:

BBC Radio 4 gave Professor Edzard Ernst a 15 minute slot to explain “Why I Changed My Mind’ on Wednesday 4th May 2016. It was repeated on 12th May 2016. He was interviewed by Dominic Lawson [1]. The programme demonstrates the lengths to which the BBC is prepared to go in order under undermine Alternative Medicine, and Homeopathy, in particular [2].

Lawson set the tone. Ernst, he stated, is hated by alternative health practitioners, the Prince of Wales tried to get him sacked, and he eventually lost his academic post because of the criticism he attracted for his work. Ernst was left to agree with this dreadfully unfair and unreasonable treatment [3]. So Ernst was then led to explain his ‘change of mind’ about homeopathy. As a friend and colleague of mine said,

“Ernst (says) that as a German, he was raised on Homeopathy, and later treated his patients with homeopathy. And it worked! But when he approached it ‘scientifically’, he concluded that it’s merely placebo.”

So let’s be clear. Ernst’s experience of homeopathy has  been that it does work [4], but that the science he has looked at does not demonstrate that it works. (Even this is wrong [5], but leave that for now!) So people do get better as the result of homeopathic treatment, but ‘science’, or at least Ernst’s science [6], does not understand why it should [7]. Ernst also said that he was convinced, at the time, that he was ‘helping patients’.

Lawson then asked his most difficult question (sic). If he knew that homeopathy worked, why did it work? Ernst’s response was that it was charlatanism and quackery, and was “quite puzzling’ really [8]. So as homeopathy worked, but science said it should not work [8], he went on to study this in his post at Exeter University.

Lawson, in the great tradition of BBC impartiality [2], (sic), continued to lead him on. “When did you decide that homeopathy was useless, delusional?”

Ernst said that when he ‘did the science’ it became clear that homeopathy is placebo.

Now, lets look at this word, placebo. The Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘the placebo effects’ as”

“A beneficial effect produced by a placebo drug or treatment, which cannot be attributed to the properties of the placebo itself, and must therefore be due to the patient’s belief in that treatment”

So by using the term ‘placebo’ Ernst is once again saying the homeopathy has a ‘beneficial effect’ on patients who are ill [9]. Lawson did ask Ernst whether there was anything wrong using placebo if this brought positive benefits to patients. Ernst said that people got better anyway! (Is it really is a simple as this?) [7]

Lawson, now thoroughly convinced of Ernst’s arguments, asked his whether he thought homeopaths were lying. With some apparent grace, Ernst said that lying was a strong term, by the were ‘deluded’, and ‘treated homeopathy as a religion’.

Lawson came back, asking why there were lots of qualified doctors who believe in homeopathy, and whether they should they be struck off, or stopped from practising? No, said Ernst, they were just not thinking critically, and needed to be educated out of their delusions.

Presumably, for both Lawson and Ernst, using a medical therapy that worked and brought benefit to patients [7], but which science could not explain, should be restricted, if not banned altogether.

Lawson’s final question clearly demonstrated his impartiality. “Can we justify homeopathy, or any other kind of quackery? (My emphasis). “No”, said Ernst, predictably!

The BBC regularly broadcasts these kind of anti-homeopathy, anti-alternative-medicine programmes, with never an attempt to redress the balance [2]. They will never broadcast a programme that provides an alternative medical view. The BBC appears to be firmly in the camp of the conventional medical establishment [2], and committed to providing time to anti-homeopaths without any ‘right of reply’.

Why, for example, was there no question about the quality of the ‘science’ Ernst is associated with?  Certainly, his science has come under serious scrutiny. For instance, I blogged about “The contribution of Professor Edzard Ernst to disinformation about Homeopathy” in September 1915 [!!!]. This followed an assessment made by Professor Robert Kahn about the quality of Ernst’s science. This was his conclusion [10].

“I have never seen a science writer so blatantly biased as Edzard Ernst: his work should not be considered of any worth at all, and discarded.”

Kahn’s paper shows, in his view, how ‘science’ has been taken over by ideology, (or as I suggested the financial interests of Big Corporations like Big Pharma). He revealed that in order to demonstrate homeopathy is ineffective over 95% of scientific research into homeopathy has to be discarded or removed! [10]

There was, of course, no mention of this in the BBC programme! [11]

So if Ernst’s change of mind was ‘scientific’, it was based on bad science [12], the kind of science much discussed in this blog, bought science, cheque book science, the kind of science based on university faculties funded by the pharmaceutical industry [13]. Ernst’s funding dried up when his academic position had become untenable [14], and he lost the support of his financial backers [15]. As my friends and colleague said, in response to the programme:

“Ernst’s religion is Science, not the well being of the patients. I wonder how many listeners will
be influenced by him as he does come across as an experienced and rational man?” 

I agree with her assessment. Anyone can come over as an ‘experience and rational man’ when given an uncritical platform, such as this BBC programme proved to be. Certainly, Peter Fisher, the Queen’s homeopath, was one of his main critics. Why, Lawson asked Ernst, did homeopathy have ‘such a grip’ on the Royal Family? Ernst did not know, but he did know that “when they get really ill they do not go to a homeopathy, otherwise they would not get so old!”

At this point I began to wonder on what knowledge Ernst used to know how the Royal Family were being treated, and scientific basis his belief that their longevity was nothing to do with homeopathy? The question was never asked, so we will, I fear, never know! [16] [1] you can listen to the programme here

[2] a serious allegation for which no evidence is provided, and I suppose none exists

[3] this is the truth

[4] not true, my experience was that patients got better for which there are good, scientifically sound explanations that do not involve homeopathy

[5] no, it’s not

[6] the best available evidence today which has little to do with ‘my’ science; might this be a little attempt at an ad hominem?

[7] no, science does understand the phenomena involved well: placebo, regression towards the mean, natural history of the disease etc.

[8] a wilful misinterpretation of my words

[9] no, this is not what I said, homeopathic remedies are ineffective and the observed effects are due to other phenomena

[10] not Kahn but Hahn; and his criticism is laughable, see here

[11] the programme is a series of interviews with people who have changed their mind on an important subject; such questions do not belong there

[12] any proof for that other than Hahn?

[13] false and libellous allegation

[14] no, when HRH had filed his complaint; this is all described in detail in my memoir

[15] poor logic: if I had been funded by the ‘enemies of homeopathy’, my funding should have increased

[16] anyone who follows the news bulletins about the Royals will know where they go when seriously ill.

Reiki is one of the most popular types of ‘energy healing’. Reiki healers believe to be able to channel ‘healing energy’ into patients’ body thus enabling them to get healthy. If Reiki were not such a popular treatment, one could brush such claims aside and think “let the lunatic fringe believe what they want”. But as Reiki so effectively undermines consumers’ sense of reality and rationality, I feel I should continue informing the public about this subject – despite the fact that I have already reported about it several times before, for instance here, here, here, here, here and here.

A new RCT, published in a respected journal looks interesting enough for a further blog-post on the subject. The main aim of the study was to investigate the effectiveness of two psychotherapeutic approaches, cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) and a complementary medicine method Reiki, in reducing depression scores in adolescents. The researchers from Canada, Malaysia and Australia recruited 188 adolescent depressed adolescents. They were randomly assigned to CBT, Reiki or wait-list. Depression scores were assessed before and after 12 weeks of treatments/wait list. CBT showed a significantly greater decrease in Child Depression Inventory (CDI) scores across treatment than both Reiki (p<.001) and the wait-list control (p<.001). Reiki also showed greater decreases in CDI scores across treatment relative to the wait-list control condition (p=.031).  Male participants showed a smaller treatment effects for Reiki than did female participants. The authors concluded that both CBT and Reiki were effective in reducing the symptoms of depression over the treatment period, with effect for CBT greater than Reiki.

I find it most disappointing that these days even respected journals publish such RCTs without the necessary critical input. This study may appear to be rigorous but, in fact, it is hardly worth the paper it was printed on.

The results show that Reiki produced worse results than CBT. That I can well believe!

However, the findings also suggest that Reiki was nevertheless “effective in reducing the symptoms of depression”, as the authors put it in their conclusions. This statement is misleading!

It is based on the comparison of Reiki with doing nothing. As Reiki involves lots of attention, it can be assumed to generate a sizable placebo effect. As a proportion of the patients in the wait list group are probably disappointed for not getting such attention, they can be assumed to experience the adverse effects of their disappointment. The two phenomena combined can easily explain the result without any “effectiveness” of Reiki per se.

If such considerations are not fully discussed and made amply clear even in the conclusions of the abstract, it seems reasonable to accuse the journal of being less than responsible and the authors of being outright misleading.

As with so many papers in this area, one has to ask: WHERE DOES SLOPPY RESEARCH END AND WHERE DOES SCIENTIFIC MISCONDUCT BEGIN?

My last post was about a researcher who manages to produce nothing but positive findings with the least promising alternative therapy, homeopathy. Some might think that this is an isolated case or an anomaly – but they would be wrong. I have previously published about researchers who have done very similar things with homeopathy or other unlikely therapies. Examples include:

Claudia Witt

George Lewith

John Licciardone

But there are many more, and I will carry on highlighting their remarkable work. For example, the research of a German group headed by Prof Gustav Dobos, one of the most prolific investigator in alternative medicine at present.

For my evaluation, I conducted a Medline search of the last 10 of Dobos’ published articles and excluded those not assessing the effectiveness of alternative therapies such as surveys, comments, etc. Here they are with their respective conclusions and publication dates:

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW COMPARING DIFFERENT YOGA STYLES (2016)

RCTs with different yoga styles do not differ in their odds of reaching positive conclusions. Given that most RCTs were positive, the choice of an individual yoga style can be based on personal preferences and availability.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF YOGA FOR WEIGHT LOSS (2016)

Despite methodological drawbacks, yoga can be preliminarily considered a safe and effective intervention to reduce body mass index in overweight or obese individuals.

REVIEW OF INTEGRATIVE MEDICINE IN GYNAECOLOGICAL ONCOLOGY (2016)

…there is published, positive level I evidence for a number of CAM treatment forms.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF MINDFULNESS FOR PSYCHOSES (2016)

Mindfulness- and acceptance-based interventions can be recommended as an additional treatment for patients with psychosis.

RCT OF CABBAGE LEAF WRAPS FOR OSTEOARTHOSIS (2016)

Cabbage leaf wraps are more effective for knee osteoarthritis than usual care, but not compared with diclofenac gel. Therefore, they might be recommended for patients with osteoarthritis of the knee.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF HERBAL MEDICINES FOR COUGH (2015)

This review found strong evidence for A. paniculata and ivy/primrose/thyme-based preparations and moderate evidence for P. sidoides being significantly superior to placebo in alleviating the frequency and severity of patients’ cough symptoms. Additional research, including other herbal treatments, is needed in this area.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF DIETARY APPROACHES FOR METABOLIC SYNDROME (2016)

Dietary approaches should mainly be tried to reduce macronutrients and enrich functional food components such as vitamins, flavonoids, and unsaturated fatty acids. People with Metabolic Syndrome will benefit most by combining weight loss and anti-inflammatory nutrients.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW OF MIND BODY MEDICINE FOR CORONARY HEART DISEASE (2015)

In patients with CHD, MBM programs can lessen the occurrence of cardiac events, reduce atherosclerosis, and lower systolic blood pressure, but they do not reduce mortality. They can be used as a complement to conventional rehabilitation programs.

CRANIOSACRAL THERAPY (CST) FOR BACK PAIN (2016)

CST was both specifically effective and safe in reducing neck pain intensity and may improve functional disability and the quality of life up to 3 months after intervention.

REVIEW OF INTEGRATED MEDICINE FOR BREAST CANCER (2015)

Study data have shown that therapy- and disease-related side effects can be reduced using the methods of integrative medicine. Reported benefits include improving patients’ wellbeing and quality of life, reducing stress, and improving patients’ mood, sleeping patterns and capacity to cope with disease.

Amazed?

Dobos seems to be an ‘all-rounder’ whose research tackles a wide range of alternative treatments. That is perhaps unremarkable – but what I do find remarkable is the impression that, whatever he researches, the results turn out to be pretty positive. This might imply one of two things, in my view:

I let my readers chose which possibility they deem to be more likely.

Mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) has not been rigorously evaluated as a treatment of chronic low back pain. According to its authors, this RCT was aimed at evaluating “the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or usual care.”

The investigators randomly assigned patients to receive MBSR (n = 116), CBT (n = 113), or usual care (n = 113). CBT meant training to change pain-related thoughts and behaviours and MBSR meant training in mindfulness meditation and yoga. Both were delivered in 8 weekly 2-hour groups. Usual care included whatever care participants received.

Coprimary outcomes were the percentages of participants with clinically meaningful (≥30%) improvement from baseline in functional limitations (modified Roland Disability Questionnaire [RDQ]; range, 0-23) and in self-reported back pain bothersomeness (scale, 0-10) at 26 weeks. Outcomes were also assessed at 4, 8, and 52 weeks.

There were 342 randomized participants with a mean duration of back pain of 7.3 years. They attended 6 or more of the 8 sessions, 294 patients completed the study at 26 weeks, and 290 completed it at 52 weeks. In intent-to-treat analyses at 26 weeks, the percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement on the RDQ was higher for those who received MBSR (60.5%) and CBT (57.7%) than for usual care (44.1%), and RR for CBT vs usual care, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.01-1.69]). The percentage of participants with clinically meaningful improvement in pain bothersomeness at 26 weeks was 43.6% in the MBSR group and 44.9% in the CBT group, vs 26.6% in the usual care group, and RR for CBT vs usual care was 1.69 [95% CI, 1.18-2.41]). Findings for MBSR persisted with little change at 52 weeks for both primary outcomes.

The authors concluded that among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR or CBT, compared with usual care, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT. These findings suggest that MBSR may be an effective treatment option for patients with chronic low back pain.

At first glance, this seems like a well-conducted study. It was conducted by one of the leading back pain research team and was published in a top-journal. It will therefore have considerable impact. However, on closer examination, I have serious doubts about certain aspects of this trial. In my view, both the aims and the conclusions of this RCT are quite simply wrong.

The authors state that they aimed at evaluating “the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR vs cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT) or usual care.” This is not just misleading, it is wrong! The correct aim should have been to evaluate “the effectiveness for chronic low back pain of MBSR plus usual care vs cognitive behavioural therapy plus usual care or usual care alone.” One has to go into the method section to find the crucial statement: “All participants received any medical care they would normally receive.”

Consequently, the conclusions are equally wrong. They should have read as follows: Among adults with chronic low back pain, treatment with MBSR plus usual care or CBT plus usual care, compared with usual care alone, resulted in greater improvement in back pain and functional limitations at 26 weeks, with no significant differences in outcomes between MBSR and CBT.

In other words, this is yet another trial with the dreaded ‘A+B vs B’ design. Because A+B is always more than B (even if A is just a placebo), such a study will never generate a negative result (even if A is just a placebo). The results are therefore entirely compatible with the notion that the two tested treatments are pure placebos. Add to this the disappointment many patients in the ‘usual care group’ might have felt for not receiving an additional therapy for their pain, and you have a most plausible explanation for the observed outcomes.

I am totally puzzled why the authors failed to discuss these possibilities and limitations in full, and I am equally bewildered that JAMA published such questionable research.

 

Recently, I came across the ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines on the Use of Integrative Therapies as Supportive Care in Patients Treated for Breast Cancer’ published by the ‘Society for Integrative Oncology (SIO) Guidelines Working Group’. The mission of the SIO is to “advance evidence-based, comprehensive, integrative healthcare to improve the lives of people affected by cancer. The SIO has consistently encouraged rigorous scientific evaluation of both pre-clinical and clinical science, while advocating for the transformation of oncology care to integrate evidence-based complementary approaches. The vision of SIO is to have research inform the true integration of complementary modalities into oncology care, so that evidence-based complementary care is accessible and part of standard cancer care for all patients across the cancer continuum. As an interdisciplinary and inter-professional society, SIO is uniquely poised to lead the “bench to bedside” efforts in integrative cancer care.”

The aim of the ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines’ was to “inform clinicians and patients about the evidence supporting or discouraging the use of specific complementary and integrative therapies for defined outcomes during and beyond breast cancer treatment, including symptom management.”

This sounds like a most laudable aim. Therefore I studied the document carefully and was surprised to read their conclusions: “Specific integrative therapies can be recommended as evidence-based supportive care options during breast cancer treatment.”

How can this be? On this blog, we have repeatedly seen evidence to suggest that integrative medicine is little more than the admission of quackery into evidence-based healthcare. This got me wondering how their conclusion had been reached, and I checked the document even closer.

On the surface, it seemed well-made. A team of researchers first defined the treatments they wanted to look at, then they searched for RCTs, evaluated their quality, extracted their results, combined them into an overall verdict and wrote the whole thing up. In a word, they conducted what seems a proper systematic review.

Based on the findings of their review, they then issued recommendations which I thought were baffling in several respects. Let me just focus on three of the SIO’s recommendations dealing with acupuncture:

  1. “Acupuncture can be considered for treating anxiety concurrent with ongoing fatigue…” [only RCT (1) cited in support]
  2. “Acupuncture can be considered for improving depressive symptoms in women suffering from hot flashes…” [RCTs (1 and 2) cited in support] 
  3. “Acupuncture can be considered for treating anxiety concurrent with ongoing fatigue…” [only RCT (1) cited in support]
One or two studies as a basis for far-reaching guidelines? Yes, that would normally be a concern! But, at closer scrutiny, my worries about these recommendation turn out to be much more serious than this.

The actual RCT (1) cited in support of all three recommendations stated that the authors “randomly assigned 75 patients to usual care and 227 patients to acupuncture plus usual care…” As we have discussed often before on this blog and elsewhere, such a ‘A+B versus B study design’ will never generate a negative result, does not control for placebo-effects and is certainly not a valid test for the effectiveness of the treatment in question. Nevertheless, the authors of this study concluded that: “Acupuncture is an effective intervention for managing the symptom of cancer-related fatigue and improving patients’ quality of life.”

RCT (2) cited in support of recommendation number 2 seems to be a citation error; the study in question is not an acupuncture-trial and does not back the statement in question. I suspect they meant to cite their reference number 87 (instead of 88). This trial is an equivalence study where 50 patients were randomly assigned to receive 12 weeks of acupuncture (n = 25) or venlafaxine (n = 25) treatment for cancer-related hot flushes. Its results indicate that the two treatments generated the similar results. As the two therapies could also have been equally ineffective, it is impossible, in my view, to conclude that acupuncture is effective.

Finally, RCT (1) does in no way support recommendation number two. Yet RCT (1) and RCT (2) were both cited in support of this recommendation.

I have not systematically checked any other claims made in this document, but I get the impression that many other recommendations made here are based on similarly ‘liberal’ interpretations of the evidence. How can the ‘Society for Integrative Oncology’ use such dodgy pseudo-science for formulating potentially far-reaching guidelines?

I know none of the authors (Heather Greenlee, Lynda G. Balneaves, Linda E. Carlson, Misha Cohen, Gary Deng, Dawn Hershman, Matthew Mumber, Jane Perlmutter, Dugald Seely, Ananda Sen, Suzanna M. Zick, Debu Tripathy) of the document personally. They made the following collective statement about their conflicts of interest: “There are no financial conflicts of interest to disclose. We note that some authors have conducted/authored some of the studies included in the review.” I am a little puzzled to hear that they have no financial conflicts of interest (do not most of them earn their living by practising integrative medicine? Yes they do! The article informs us that: “A multidisciplinary panel of experts in oncology and integrative medicine was assembled to prepare these clinical practice guidelines. Panel members have expertise in medical oncology, radiation oncology, nursing, psychology, naturopathic medicine, traditional Chinese medicine, acupuncture, epidemiology, biostatistics, and patient advocacy.”). I also suspect they have other, potentially much stronger conflicts of interest. They belong to a group of people who seem to religiously believe in the largely nonsensical concept of integrative medicine. Integrating unproven treatments into healthcare must affect its quality in much the same way as the integration of cow pie into apple pie would affect the taste of the latter.

After considering all this carefully, I cannot help wondering whether these ‘Clinical Practice Guidelines’ by the ‘Society for Integrative Oncology’ are just full of honest errors or whether they amount to fraud and scientific misconduct.

WHATEVER THE ANSWER, THE GUIDELINES MUST BE RETRACTED, IF THIS SOCIETY WANTS TO AVOID LOSING ALL CREDIBILITY.

What a question, you might say. And you would be right, it’s a most awkward one, so much so that I cannot answer it for myself.

I NEED YOUR HELP.

Here is the story:

Ten years ago, with the help of S Lejeune and an EU grant, my team conducted a Cochrane review of Laertrile. To do the ‘ground work’, we hired an Italian research assistant, S Milazzo, who was supervised mainly by my research fellow Katja Schmidt. Consequently, the review was published under the names of all main contributors: Milazzo, Ernst, Lejeune, Schmidt.

In 2011, an update was due for which the help of Dr Markus Horneber, the head of a German research team investigating alt med in relation to cancer, was recruited. By then, Milazzo and Schmidt had left my unit and, with my consent, Horneber, Milazzo and Schmidt took charge of the review. I was then sent a draft of their update and did a revision of it which consisted mostly in checking the facts and making linguistic changes. The article was then published under the following authorship: Milazzo S, Ernst E, Lejeune S, Boehm K, Horneber M (Katja had married meanwhile, so Boehm and Schmidt are the same person).

A few days ago, I noticed that a further update had been published in 2015. Amazingly, I had not been told, asked to contribute, or informed that my name as co-author had been scrapped. The authors of the new update are simply Milazzo and Horneber (the latter being the senior author). Katja Boehm had apparently indicated that she did no longer want to be involved; I am not sure what happened to Lejeune.

I know Markus Horneber since donkey’s years and had co-authored several other papers with him in the past, so I (admittedly miffed about my discovery) sent him an email and asked him whether he did not consider this behaviour to amount to plagiarism. His reply was, in my view, unhelpful in explaining why I had not been asked to get involved and Horneber asked me to withdraw the allegation of plagiarism (which I had not even made) – or else he would take legal action (this was the moment when I got truly suspicious).

Next, I contacted the responsible editor at the Cochrane Collaboration, not least because Horneber had claimed that she had condoned the disputed change of authorship. Her reply confirmed that “excluding previous authors without giving them a chance to comment is not normal Cochrane policy” and that she did, in fact, not condone the omission of my name from the list of co-authors.

The question that I am asking myself (not for the first time, I am afraid – a similar, arguably worse case has been described in the comments section of this post) is the following: IS THIS A CASE OF PLAGIARISM OR NOT? In the name of honesty, transparency and science, it requires an answer, I think.

Even after contemplating it for several days, I seem to be unable to find a conclusive response. On the one hand, I did clearly not contribute to the latest (2015) update and should therefore not be a co-author. On the other hand, I feel that I should have been asked to contribute, in which case I would certainly have done so and remained a co-author.

For a fuller understanding of this case, I here copy the various sections of the abstracts of the 2011 update (marked OLD) and the 2015 update without my co-authorship (marked NEW):

 

OLD

Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous.

NEW

Laetrile is the name for a semi-synthetic compound which is chemically related to amygdalin, a cyanogenic glycoside from the kernels of apricots and various other species of the genus Prunus. Laetrile and amygdalin are promoted under various names for the treatment of cancer although there is no evidence for its efficacy. Due to possible cyanide poisoning, laetrile can be dangerous.

OBJECTIVES:

OLD

To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin.

NEW

To assess the alleged anti-cancer effect and possible adverse effects of laetrile and amygdalin.

SEARCH METHODS:

OLD

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2011, Issue 1); MEDLINE (1951-2011); EMBASE (1980-2011); AMED; Scirus; CancerLit; CINAHL (all from 1982-2011); CAMbase (from 1998-2011); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language.

NEW

We searched the following databases: CENTRAL (2014, Issue 9); MEDLINE (1951-2014); EMBASE (1980-2014); AMED; Scirus; CINAHL (all from 1982-2015); CAMbase (from 1998-2015); the MetaRegister; the National Research Register; and our own files. We examined reference lists of included studies and review articles and we contacted experts in the field for knowledge of additional studies. We did not impose any restrictions of timer or language.

SELECTION CRITERIA:

OLD

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

NEW

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS:

OLD

We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria.

NEW

We searched eight databases and two registers for studies testing laetrile or amygdalin for the treatment of cancer. Two review authors screened and assessed articles for inclusion criteria.

MAIN RESULTS:

OLD

We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review and an additional 6 in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria.

NEW

We located over 200 references, 63 were evaluated in the original review, 6 in the 2011 and none in this update. However, we did not identify any studies that met our inclusion criteria.

AUTHORS’ CONCLUSIONS:

OLD

The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.

NEW

The claims that laetrile or amygdalin have beneficial effects for cancer patients are not currently supported by sound clinical data. There is a considerable risk of serious adverse effects from cyanide poisoning after laetrile or amygdalin, especially after oral ingestion. The risk-benefit balance of laetrile or amygdalin as a treatment for cancer is therefore unambiguously negative.

END OF ABSTRACT

I HOPE THAT YOU, THE READER OF THIS POST, ARE NOW ABLE TO TELL ME:

HAVE I BEEN PLAGIARISED?

P S

After the response from the Cochrane editor, I asked Horneber whether he wanted to make a further comment because I was thinking to blog about this. So far, I have not received a reply.

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories