Tian Jiu (TJ) therapy is a so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) that has been widely utilized in the management of allergic rhinitis (AR). TJ is also known as “drug moxibustion” or “vesiculating moxibustion.” Herbal patches are applied on the selected acupoints or the diseased body part. In TCM, this treatment is said to regulate the functions of meridians and zang-fu organs, warm the channels, disperse coldness, invigorate qi movement, harmonize nutrient absorption and defence mechanisms, and resolve stagnation in the body and stasis of the blood.
But does it work? This single-blinded, three-arm, randomized controlled study evaluated the efficacy of TJ therapy in AR. A total of 138 AR patients were enrolled. The TJ group and placebo group both received 4-weeks of treatment with either TJ or placebo patches for 2 hours. The patches were applied to Dazhui (GV 14), bilateral Feishu (UB 13), and bilateral Shenshu (UB 23) points. Patients received one session per week and then underwent a 4-week follow-up. The waitlist group received no treatment during the corresponding treatment period, but would be given compensatory TJ treatment in the next 4 weeks.
The primary outcome was the change of the Total Nasal Symptom Score (TNSS) after treatment. The secondary outcomes included the changes of Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire (RQLQ) and rescue medication score (RMS).
After the treatment period, the total TNSS in TJ group was significantly reduced compared with baseline, but showed no statistical difference compared with placebo. Among the four domains of TNSS, the change of nasal obstruction exhibited statistical difference compared with placebo group. The total RQLQ score in TJ group was significantly reduced compared with both placebo and waitlist groups. The needs of rescue medications were not different between the two groups.
There were no serious adverse events. The common adverse events included flush, pruritus, blister, and pigmentation, occurring in 17, 23, 3, and 36 person-times among TJ group, and 3, 7, 1, and 4 person-times among placebo group, respectively. These adverse events were generally tolerated and disappeared quickly after removing the patches.
The authors (from the Hong Kong Chinese Medicine Clinical Study Centre, School of Chinese Medicine, Hong Kong Baptist University) concluded that this randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial served primary evidence of the efficacy and safety of TJ therapy on AR in Hong Kong. This pilot study provided a fundamental TJ protocol for future research. Through adjusting treatment timing, frequency, retention time, and even body response settings, it has the potential to develop into an optimal therapeutic method for future application.
The authors of this poorly written paper seem to ignore their own findings by concluding as they do. The fact is that the primary endpoint of this trial failed to show a significant difference between TJ and placebo. Moreover, TJ does have considerable adverse effects. Therefore, this study fails to demonstrate both the effectiveness and the safety of TJ as a treatment of AR.
PS
I often hesitate whether or not to discuss the plethora such frightfully incompetent research. The reason I sometimes do it is to alert the public to the fact that so much utter rubbish is published by incompetent researchers in trashy (but Medline-listed) journals, passed by incompetent ethics committees, supported by naïve funding agencies, accepted by reviewers and editors who evidently do not do their job properly. Do all these people have forgotten that they have a responsibility towards the public?
It is time to stop this nonsense!
It gives a bad name to science, misleads the public and inhibits progress.
13 Responses to Tian Jui for allergic rhinitis – one of the worst studies I have seen for a long time
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
It is probably good that you make a point of pointing out flaws in this type of research. Many readers of studies like this will not get past the abstract and the conclusions. With all your years in reading research papers, it is easy to forget that many readers will not see what you see. During the training I had for a DDS, there was little time spent discussing how to read a paper beyond mention of journal articles that said this or that. It was only during a residency that topics such as biostatistics and Literature Review even came up. Critical journal reading is a skill that too few actually have.
Thus taking full advantage of all the exciting discoveries in biology and medicine over the past 300 years.
Nicely expressed.
I don’t know TJ
I do practice Paida Lajin.
The philosopy is simple, help the body to heal itself.
This describes TCM and homeopathy in a nutshell.
glad to see that you also don’t know what a philosophy is
Apropos Paida Lajin:
https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/six-year-old-boy-who-died-after-healing-workshop-was-so-weak-he-could-not-stand-or-open-eyes-court-20181107-p50ei0.html
Bjorn
My wife and I have been applying Paida Lajin for about two years now, we’re still alive, and feeling better than previous.
so?
So take your pills, and cram them up your ass
which pills do you suggest?
Edzard’s micro-concise comments may glide smoothly like vaseline over your head, RG.
So: what’s the evidence for causality of Paida Lajin relative to your “still alive” (so are all the negative commenters on this thread, who don’t give a monkey’s for Paida Lajin) and “feeling better” (relative to what, precisely, and how was this measured in time relative to your starting Paida Lajin?)
Do try to get your head around critical thinking, RG. It will make you feel way better while you’re still alive 🙂 .
Bjorn,
https://edzardernst.com/2019/06/tian-jui-for-allergic-rhinitis-one-of-the-worst-studies-i-have-seen-for-a-long-time/#comment-114719
Frank
If “critical thinking” is what spins you world for you, then you have at it.
I tried listening to, and following the MDs in my life for decades, and observed the same in the lives of my family and friends. What I witnessed was too much failure and not enough success. The so called experts (MDs) were supposed to be the real critical thinkers, with all the answers, but it didn’t happen that way for me. Why should I continue following the same course, and expect a different result ? I found my own direction, a different and better way.
My critical thinking involves listening to, and observing my body. I’ve become quite good at it.