acupuncture
The aim of this recent review was to investigate the efficacy of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for adults with low back pain compared with placebo. It included all randomised controlled trials evaluating non-surgical and non-interventional treatments compared with placebo or sham in adults (≥18 years) suffering from non-specific low back pain.
Random effects meta-analysis was used to estimate pooled effects and corresponding 95% confidence intervals on outcome pain intensity (0 to 100 scale) at first assessment post-treatment for each treatment type and by duration of low back pain—(sub)acute (<12 weeks) and chronic (≥12 weeks). Certainty of the evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment (GRADE) approach.
A total of 301 trials (377 comparisons) provided data on 56 different treatments or treatment combinations. One treatment for acute low back pain: (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)), and five treatments for chronic low back pain:
- exercise,
- spinal manipulative therapy,
- taping,
- antidepressants,
- transient receptor potential vanilloid 1 (TRPV1) agonists)
were found to be efficacious. However, effect sizes were small and of moderate certainty. Three treatments for acute low back pain (exercise, glucocorticoid injections, paracetamol), and two treatments for chronic low back pain (antibiotics, anaesthetics) were not efficacious and are unlikely to be suitable treatment options; moderate certainty evidence. Evidence is inconclusive for remaining treatments due to small samples, imprecision, or low and very low certainty evidence.
The authors concluded that the current evidence shows that one in 10 non-surgical and non-interventional treatments for low back pain are efficacious, providing only small analgesic effects beyond placebo. The efficacy for the majority of treatments is uncertain due to the limited number of randomised participants and poor study quality. Further high-quality, placebo-controlled trials are warranted to address the remaining uncertainty in treatment efficacy along with greater consideration for placebo-control design of non-surgical and non-interventional treatments.
This is an important analysis, not least because of the fact that the research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors. The methodology is sound and the results thus seem reliable.
The findings are in keeping with what we have been discussing at nauseam here: no treatment works really well for back pain. For acute symptoms no so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) at all is efficacious. For chronic pain, spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) have small effects. As SMT is neither cheap nor free of risks, excercise is much preferable.
Considering that most SCAMs are heavily promoted for low back pain (e.g. acupuncture, Alexander technique, cupping, Gua Sha, herbal medicine, homeopathy, massage, mind-body therapies, reflexology, Reiki, yoga), this verdict is sobering indeed!
Constipation is characterized by persistent difficulty in defecating. It is a common disorder in the community particularly affecting the elderly and those with intellectual disabilities and neuropsychiatric disorders. It can also be caused by numerous medications including analgesic, antidepressant, antihypertensive and anticholinergic agents. It may be asymptomatic or it may produce abdominal pain/cramps, bloating, nausea and anorexia progressing to urinary incontinence and fecal impaction, or paradoxical diarrhea due to overflow.
This review demonstrated that constipation may also kill you. A wide range of mechanisms associated with constipation may result in death including:
- bowel obstruction,
- stercoral colitis with ulceration,
- perforation and peritonitis,
- respiratory compromise,
- abdominal compartment syndrome,
- venous thrombosis with pulmonary thromboembolism.
Moreover, constipation may exacerbate pre-existing diseases and treatments such as laxative and enemas may be lethal. The autopsy examination of a case with constipation and megacolon should take into account all of the pre-existing conditions, as well as the possibility of underlying disorders such as Hirschprung disease. Review of the decedent’s medical and drug history and level of supportive care will be important. Toxicological evaluations may be useful.
____________________
Constipation is defined as having fewer than three bowel movements per week or experiencing difficulty in passing stool. The condition is common and often difficult to treat. WebMD recommends diet and lifestyle changes, such as:
- Drink an extra two to four glasses of water a day, unless your doctor tells you to limit fluids for another reason.
- Try warm liquids, especially in the morning.
- Add fruits and vegetables to your diet.
- Eat prunes and bran cereal.
- Exercise most days of the week. When you move your body, the muscles in your intestines are more active, too.
- Don’t ignore the urge to poop. Listen to your body when it’s telling you it’s time to go.
- Eat foods with probiotics such as yogurt and kefir.
- Skip processed meats, fried foods, and refined carbs such as white bread, pasta, and potatoes. You can eat lean meats such as poultry and low-fat dairy products.
- Keep a food diary and make a note of any foods that constipate you.
- Adjust how you sit on the toilet. Raising your feet, leaning back, or squatting may make it easier to poop.
- Take an over-the-counter fiber supplement (Metamucil®, MiraLAX®, Citrucel® or Benefiber®). Start with a small amount at first.
- Avoid reading or using your phone or other devices while you’re trying to move your bowels.
- Drink less alcohol and caffeinated drinks, which can make you dehydrated.
- Talk to your doctor about bowel training. It can help train your body to pass stool shortly after breakfast every morning.
- Don’t rush when going to the bathroom. Give yourself time to relax, which can help your digestive muscles relax.
- Talk to your doctor about any medications that could be causing your constipation.
___________________
Because conventional options are often not as successful as hoped, many sufferers turn to so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). But is SCAM really a solution?
A recent review found that “acupuncture or electroacupuncture and herbal medicine are effective in treating
constipation, whereas findings on massage and moxibustion are inconclusive.” Our own assessment [‘Oxford Handbook…’ (2008)] of the evidence disagrees and rated as follows:
- Beneficial: Psyllium
- Likely to be beneficial: abdominal massage, biofeedback, fibre
- Unknown effectiveness: acupuncture, aloe vera, ayurvedic medicine, meditation, Padma Lax, probiotics, herbal tea.
Whichever way we turn it, constipation is a more serious condition than many of us think, and neither conventional healthcare nor SCAM are convincingly successful in helping those who suffer from it.
Tuina, or Tui Na is based on the notion that imbalances of the life-force, qi, can cause blockages or imbalances that lead to symptoms and illness. Tuina massage is similar to acupressure in that it targets specific acupoints. Practitioners use fingers to apply pressure to stimulate these points.
Some people suggest that Tuina might benefit diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN), but the evidence is inconclusive. This review evaluated its clinical efficacy and safety for DPN treatment.
Ten databases were searched, covering the period from their inception to February 21, 2024. Relevant data were extracted from studies meeting the inclusion criteria, and a meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan
5.3 software.
A total of 24 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 1,989 participants were included. Patients in the experimental group received Tuina in addition to routine treatments and nursing of DPN. Patients in the control group received routine treatments and nursing of DPN, including health education, dietary guidance, blood sugar control, and oral vitamin B or mecobalamin.
The meta-analysis showed that, compared to various control therapies, Tuina demonstrated a higher overall clinical efficacy rate and improved Toronto Clinical Scoring System (TCSS) scores, indicating that Chinese Tuina may provide benefits beyond conventional treatment. Furthermore, improvements were observed in the motor and sensory nerve conduction velocities (MNCV and SNCV) of certain specific nerves, such as the common peroneal nerve, sural nerve, and ulnar nerve. Although the differences in MNCV and SNCV of the tibial and median nerves were not statistically significant, the overall improvement in clinical outcome supports the notion that Tuina is superior to conventional treatment.
The authors concluded that Chinese Tuina therapy is a safe and effective treatment option for DPN. It can alleviate clinical symptoms and improve the MNCV of the common peroneal nerve as well as the SNCV of the sural and ulnar nerves. Its efficacy in the tibial and median nerves remains unconfirmed, highlighting a need for future large-scale, high-quality RCTs.
There are several reasons why I cannot accept the conclusion that Tuina is effective for DPN, e.g:
- All the RCTs were of the notorious A+B vs B design that – as discussed ad nauseam on this blog – does not control for placebo effects and thus never generate negative results.
- None of the RCTs were single or double blind which means that expectation and therapist influence would have impacted on the findings.
- All of the studes originate from China; we have often discussed why such studies are notoriously unreliable. Funding for the review was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China and Jilin Provincial Natural Science Foundation Project.
- Most of the studies are published in journals and/or laguages that are not accessible to non-Chinese readers.
- None of these serious limitations are discussed by the review authors.
I REST MY CASE
It does not happen every day that the prestigeous German FRANKFURTER ALLGEMEINE ZEITUNG publishes an in-depth analysis of TCM (Traditional Chinese Medicine) and even discusses several of the themes that we, here on this blog, have often debated. Allow me, therefore, to translate a few passages from the recent FAZ article entitled “Der Fluch der alten Dinge” (The Curse of Old Things):
… TCM has countless followers in many countries. ‘TCM is a wonderful medicine that thinks ‘holistically’, that sees not just one organ but the whole person and that offers very good treatment options,’ says Dominik Irnich. He heads the German Medical Association for Acupuncture. Although there is not evidence for all indications, TCM is ‘a scientifically based option for a number of diseases, the effects of which have been proven many times over’…
Meanwhile, Beijing wants to utilise the positive image of TCM to present itself in a good light and promote exports. The current five-year plan also provides for the creation of around 20 TCM positions for epidemic prevention and control. Critics, on the other hand, see patients at risk due to insufficiently tested therapies – and medicine as a whole: many studies are hardly valid and distort the state of science…
The top leadership of the Chinese Communist Party is using the ‘old things’ to increase its global influence and utilise TCM not only in its own country, but also as an export hit. The global TCM market is estimated to be worth many billions of euros annually, but there are no reliable figures – not least because it often includes illegally traded products such as rhino horn or donkey skin, which has led to mass killings.
Officially, Beijing prosecutes illegal trade and promotes science-based medicine, but the interests are intertwined. Even under Mao, traditional methods were used in China as a favourable alternative to imported medicines, and Beijing is currently increasingly allowing them to be reimbursed. At the same time, China’s leadership is trying to anchor TCM products in healthcare worldwide, for example as part of a ‘health Silk Road’ in Africa. During the Covid-19 pandemic, the state not only used TCM products en masse in its own country, Chinese foreign representatives also distributed them to Chinese people in Europe. This included a product based on gypsum, apricot kernels and plant parts called Lianhua Qingwen. According to a report published by the consulate in Düsseldorf, this was distributed even though the sale of medicines outside of pharmacies is generally punishable by law.
Beijing has also been successful at the level of the World Health Organisation (WHO), which promotes traditional medicine from China. ‘This was part of the interests and election programme of former Chinese Director-General Margaret Chan,’ says WHO consultant Ilona Kickbusch. The WHO drew up standards for acupuncture training, including knowledge of the ‘function and interactive relationship of qi, blood, essence and fluid’, as the document states.
In 2019, the WHO member states decided to add a chapter on ‘traditional medicine’ to the standard classification of diseases. Doctors can now code alleged patterns of ‘qi stagnation’ or yang deficiency of the liver. The umbrella organisation of European science academies EASAC criticised this as a ‘significant problem’: doctors and patients could be misled and pressure could be exerted on healthcare providers to reimburse unscientific approaches. Nature magazine found: ‘The WHO’s association with drugs that have not been properly tested and could even be harmful is unacceptable for the organisation that has the greatest responsibility and power to protect human health.’ …
In general, the study situation on therapies that are categorised as TCM is extremely confusing. The evidence is ‘terrible’, says the physician Edzard Ernst, who has analysed such procedures. ‘There are thousands of studies – that’s part of the problem.’ Many studies come from China, but it is known that a large proportion are invalid or falsified. It is almost impossible to report critically on TCM there: according to media reports, a doctor was imprisoned for three months in 2018 after criticising a TCM remedy. In 2020, Beijing even considered banning criticism of TCM, but refrained from doing so after an outcry.
According to Ernst, the quality of even some of the meta-analyses from the respected Cochrane Collaboration is ‘hair-raising’ due to the inclusion of unreliable studies, and according to some Chinese researchers, acupuncture works for everything. Prof. Unschuld said at an event a year ago that he was asked in China not to address critical issues.
‘In a country without the open and free critical culture that is common in democratic countries, the control mechanisms are missing,’ says Jutta Hübner, Professor of Integrative Oncology at Jena University Hospital. The inclusion of Chinese studies, which almost never report negative results, can create a much too positive image of TCM at a formally very high level of scientific evidence, without the results being reliable…
Instead of allowing the research to be carried out by proponents, it would be desirable ‘if the universities in particular remembered that they have the duty to be critical,’ says physician Edzard Ernst. However, some university clinics prefer to advertise TCM methods in order to attract patients and money.
We often encounter multiple systematic reviews on (almost) the same topic. This provides us with interesting comparisons and is, I think an opportunity to learn. Here is an example: two reviews of auricular acupuncture for post/peri-operative pain.
- A recent review from the Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China; Rehabilitation Medicine Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China; Department of Integrated Chinese and Western Medicine, Sichuan Cancer Hospital, Chengdu, People’s Republic of China
Purpose: We conducted a more comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the effectiveness of auricular acupuncture (AA) in perioperative pain management.
Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) findings were retrieved from the Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, PubMed, Web of Science, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang, VIP, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure databases from their inception to March 2024 using the search terms “pain”, “auriculotherapy”, and “randomized controlled trial”. The experimental group was treated with AA alone or in combination with analgesic drugs, whereas the control group was treated with sham auricular acupuncture, placebo, conventional treatment, or no treatment. The primary outcome was the perioperative pain score. The secondary outcomes were analgesic requirements, anxiety score, and adverse events (AEs). RevMan version 5.4 was used for data analysis.
Results: The analysis included a total of 21 RCTs with 1527 participants. AA was superior to the control group for reducing pain intensity (mean difference [MD]= −0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: −0.72 to −0.17) and analgesic requirement (standardized mean difference [SMD]= −0.88, 95% CI: −1.29 to −0.46). Perioperative anxiety improvement did not differ significantly between the AA and control groups (MD= −5.45, 95% CI: −32.99 to 22.09). Subgroup analysis showed that AA exerted a significant analgesic effect as a preoperative intervention and in orthopedic surgery. The results of the sensitivity analysis demonstrated the stability of the results of the meta-analysis. AA-related AEs were mainly nausea, vomiting, and drowsiness. None of the patients in the experimental group dropped out of the trial due to AA-related AEs.
Conclusion: Current evidence suggests that AA may be a promising treatment option for improving perioperative pain with few AEs. However, owing to the low quality of the current evidence, large-sample, high-quality RCTs are needed to prove this conclusion.
- A not so recent review from the Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine, University of Greifswald, Germany and the Department of Complementary Medicine, Exeter, UK.
The number of publications on the peri-operative use of auricular acupuncture has rapidly increased within the last decade. The aim was to evaluate clinical evidence on the efficacy of auricular acupuncture for postoperative pain control. Electronic databases: Medline, MedPilot, DARE, Clinical Resource, Scopus and Biological Abstracts were searched from their inception to September 2007. All randomised clinical trials on the treatment of postoperative pain with auricular acupuncture were considered and their quality was evaluated using the Jadad scale. Pain intensity and analgesic requirements were defined as the primary outcome measures. Of 23 articles, nine fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Meta-analytic approach was not possible because of the heterogeneity of the primary studies. In eight of the trials, auricular acupuncture was superior to control conditions. Seven randomised clinical trials scored three or more points on the Jadad scale but none of them reached the maximum of 5 points. The evidence that auricular acupuncture reduces postoperative pain is promising but not compelling.
____________________________
Before you now claim that the second review, with me as senior author, is bound to be far too critical, let me tell you that its two other authors were not from my team and are known proponents of acupuncture.
Some notable differences between the two reviews include the following:
- Our review was published in 2008, while the Chinses review is brand-new and dates from 2025.
- The Chinese team searched several Chinese data-banks, while we only searched Western ones.
- Our review included 9 RCTs, while the new review included 21 RCTs.
- Nine studies in the Chinese review were from China, whereas only 1 study in our review originated from China.
- The authors of the Chinese review stated that large-sample, high-quality RCTs are needed to prove their conclusion, while we thought that further rigorous research and independent replications, which effectively exclude bias, seem warranted.
So, what can we learn from comparing these papers?
- Obviously, as time goes by, more studies get published.
- In the case of acupuncture, most recent studies originate from China. As we have often discussed, Chinese acupuncture trials almost invariably report (false) positive results. It follows that, in future, we will see more and more (false) positive reviews of acupuncture (and other TCM topics). At present, I see no rational way of dealing with this problem (other than not at all considering papers from Chinese authors).
- It is often easy to find indications of bias in the way authors formulate their conclusions. Impartial researchers advocate to PROVE their assumptions, while scientists want to test them in the most rigorous way possible.
The most interesting finding from this comparison is, in my view, that our 2008 conclusion would also be well-suited for the 2025 review – I would argue even better than the odd conclusions from the original authors. What the evidence suggested in 2008 is very much the same evidence as 17 years later:
The evidence that auricular acupuncture reduces peri-operative pain is promising but not compelling.
And what does this fact – that the evidence does not clearly move in a positive direction – imply? I think, it suggests that the treatment in question is hardly worth taking seriously. In other words even my re-drafted conclusion above needs to change:
The evidence that auricular acupuncture reduces peri-operative pain is not compelling!
This open-label, randomized, controlled trial was aimed to assess the effectiveness and safety of Vuong Hoat (VH) natural health supplement for reducing the negative impact of low back pain, improving the quality of life, and enhancing functional activities in patients with lumbar degenerative disc disease (LDD).
The study involved 60 patients suffering from low back pain caused by LDD. The participants were randomly assigned to:
- a study group (SG) comprising 30 subjects who received VH in conjunction with the same electro-acupuncture,
- a control group (CG) comprising 30 subjects who received treatment with electro-acupuncture.
These treatments lasted for 28 days.
The clinical progression and tolerability of both groups were compared based on seven objective measurements:
- visual analog scale index,
- Schober test,
- fingertip-to-floor distance,
- spinal flexion,
- spinal extension,
- spinal tilt,
- spinal rotation.
Already after 14 days of treatment, the SG showed a significant improvement in overall outcomes compared to the CG. Specifically, 43.3% of SG patients achieved very good results, 53.3% had good results, and 3.4% had moderate results, whereas corresponding figures for the CG were 6.7%, 76.7%, and 16.6%, respectively (P < .05).
After 28 days of treatment, both groups demonstrated a shift toward very good results, with the SG continuing to show better outcomes than the CG (P < .05). In the SG, the very good results increased to 76.7%, good results decreased to 20%, and moderate results were 3.3%. On the other hand, the CG had 46.7% very good results, 43.3% good results, and 10% moderate results. Notably, no side effects were reported from the VH treatments during the study.
The authors concluded that their findings of this study indicate that VH health supplement is a safe and effective approach for managing low back pain and limited spinal movement in patients with LDD.
I have several concerns and questions, some are trivial others are not:
- What does VH contain? I have no free access to the actual paper but even the abstract should mention this information.
- How do the investigators know that low back pain was caused by LDD? Lots of people have LDD without pain and vice versa.
- The A+B vs B design is known to produce false positive results due to its failure to control for placebo effects; why not use a placebo (which would have been very easy in this case)?
- Contrary to the authors statement, the outcome measures are NOT objective.
- It seems highly implausible that no side effects of VH occurred. Even placebos cause side-effects in ~6% of all cases.
- Conclusions about safety are NEVER warranted based on just 30 patients.
- Why does an allegedly respectable journal publish such rubbish?
The full title of this paper is “Role of Energy Medicine in enhancing hemoglobin levels – A case study”. Readers who thus expect to learn about the effects of ENERGY MEDICINE (a branch of so-called alternative medicine based on the belief that healers can channel “healing energy” into patients and effect positive results) might be disappointed.
The abstract reveals that the article “explores the potential benefits of Acupuncture and Energy Medicine as energy therapies in managing anemia”. If you now expect to learn something about the combination of ACUPUNCTURE and ENERGY MEDICINE, you would be mistaken.
Here is the abstract of the case report:
A 43-year-old female with severe anemia (hemoglobin 6.5 g/dL) participated in a three-month treatment plan that combined acupuncture and energy therapy. Acupuncture targets specific points to enhance Qi flow, stimulate blood production, and restore energy balance. The energy therapy plan focused on blood-nourishing foods aimed at supporting hematopoiesis.
After three months of treatment, the patient’s hemoglobin levels increased by 4.9 g/dL, reaching 11.4 g/dL. Clinical symptoms, including fatigue, dizziness, and weakness, showed marked improvement. Additionally, the patient reported better sleep, enhanced mood, and an increase in appetite, all of which contributed to an improved overall sense of well-being.
The authors concluded that the results suggest that Acupuncture and Energy Medicine can serve as effective energy therapies in managing anemia, particularly for cases that do not respond well to conventional treatments. This case study provides preliminary evidence of their potential to improve hemoglobin levels and alleviate anemia-related symptoms. However, further research is necessary to validate these findings and explore the broader application of acupuncture and energy medicine in anemia management.
The authors of this paper, who come from the ‘International Institute of Yoga and Naturopathy Medical Sciences‘, Chengalpattu, Tamilnadu, India, never bothered to explain what type of ENERGY MEDICINE they applied to their patient. As it turns out, they used no ENERGY MEDICINE at all! Here is what they disclosed about the treatments in the full paper:
The patient was treated with energy medicine and the treatment protocol includes Acupuncture, Diet therapy that was designed in such a way to improve the blood circulation, balance energy flow, and address underlying deficiencies in Qi and blood, particularly in relation to the Spleen, Liver and Kidney meridians, which are believed to play a role in blood production in Traditional Chinese Medicine.
So, we now know that the case report entitled “Role of Energy Medicine in enhancing hemoglobin levels – A case study” was, in fact, about a patient receiving ACUPUNCTURE and DIET.
Next, we might wonder what condition the patient had been suffering from (anemia is not a disease but a sign that can be caused by a range of diseases). All we learn from the paper is this:
She had been diagnosed with anemia three months prior and had been taking iron supplements without significant improvement in her hemoglobin (Hb) levels.
So, we now know that despite the title of the paper ( “Role of Energy Medicine in enhancing hemoglobin levels – A case study”), the authors used no ENERGY MEDICINE. We also know thet they did not bother to adequately diagnose the patient. But we are told that the case shows that Acupuncture and Energy Medicine can serve as effective energy therapies in managing anemia, particularly for cases that do not respond well to conventional treatments. Just to be clear: if a doctor sees a patient with a dangerously low hemoglobin and does not bother to establish the cause and treats her with acupuncture and diet, the physician is, in my view, guilty of criminal neglect.
At this point, I have to admit that I lost the will to live – well, not quite, perhaps. But I certainly have lost the will to take the ‘International Institute of Yoga and Naturopathy Medical Sciences‘, Chengalpattu, Tamilnadu, India, seriously. In fact, I seriously doubt that this institution should be allowed to educate future doctors. If they are able of doing anything useful, they could try to publish a book on:
HOW NOT TO WRITE A MEDICAL PAPER.
Dry needling (DN) is a treatment used by various healthcare practitioners, including physical therapists, physicians, and chiropractors. It involves the use of either solid filiform needles or hollow-core hypodermic needles for therapy of muscle pain, including pain related to myofascial pain syndrome. DN is mainly used to treat myofascial trigger points, but it is also used to target connective tissue, neural ailments, and muscular ailments. There is conflicting evidence regarding the effectiveness of DN for any condition.
Orofacial pain (OFP) typically has a musculoskeletal, dental, neural, or sinogenic origin. Our systematic review was aimed at evaluating the evidence base for the effectiveness of DN for OFP.
We searched Medline, Cochrane Central, and Web of Science (from their respective inceptions to February 2024) for RCTs evaluating the effectiveness of DN in patients with OFP. Studies with patients suffering from cervicogenic or tension type headaches as well as observational studies were excluded. Primary outcomes were pain intensity and severity; secondary outcomes were disability, quality of life, and adverse effects (AEs). The review adhered to the methods described by in the Cochrane Handbook.
Twenty-four RCTs with a total of 1,318 patients suffering from OFP could be included. Most had an unclear or high risk of bias, and the quality of the evidence ranged from very low to low for all comparisons and outcomes. A meta-analysis suggested that, compared with usual care alone, DN + usual care had no effect on pain intensity (visual analogue scale) (standardized mean difference = −1.89, 95% confidence intervals −5.81 to 2.02, very low certainty evidence) at follow-ups of up to 6 weeks. Only 6 RCTs (25%) mentioned AEs, and none of them reported that AEs had occurred. The remaining 18 (75%) studies failed to report AEs.
We concluded that DN cannot be considered as an effective treatment option for OFP. This is due to the uncertainties of the available evidence. We believe that larger, rigorous, and better reported trials with more homogeneous comparators might potentially reduce the current uncertainties. Such trials should strictly adhere to the classifications provided by the International Headache Society and published in the International Classification of Orofacial Pain.
Yet again, I need to stress that the vast majority od RCTs failed to mention AEs. When will the last (pseudo-) researcher have learnt that the non-reporting of AEs is a violation of research ethics?
This study evaluated the real-world impact of acupuncture on analgesics and healthcare resource utilization among breast cancer survivors.
The authors selected from a United States (US) commercial claims database (25% random sample of IQVIA PharMetrics® Plus for Academics) 18–63 years old malignant breast cancer survivors who were experiencing pain and were ≥ 1 year removed from cancer diagnosis. Using the difference-in-difference technique, annualized changes in analgesics [prevalence, rates of short-term (< 30-day supply) and long-term (≥ 30-day supply) prescription fills] and healthcare resource utilization (healthcare costs, hospitalizations, and emergency department visits) were compared between acupuncture-treated and non-treated patients.
Among 495 (3%) acupuncture-treated patients (median age: 55 years, stage 4: 12%, average 2.5 years post cancer diagnosis), most had commercial health insurance (92%) and experiencing musculoskeletal pain (98%). Twenty-seven percent were receiving antidepressants and 3% completed ≥ 2 long-term prescription fills of opioids. Prevalence of opioid usage reduced from 29 to 19% (P < 0.001) and NSAID usage reduced from 21 to 14% (P = 0.001) post-acupuncture. The relative prevalence of opioid and NSAID use decreased by 20% (P < 0.05) and 19% (P = 0.07), respectively, in the acupuncture-treated group compared to non-treated patients (n = 16,129). However, the reductions were not statistically significant after adjustment for confounding. Patients receiving acupuncture for pain (n = 264, 53%) were found with a relative decrease by 47% and 49% (both P < 0.05) in short-term opioid and NSAID fills compared to those treated for other conditions. High-utilization patients (≥ 10 acupuncture sessions, n = 178, 36%) were observed with a significant reduction in total healthcare costs (P < 0.001) unlike low-utilization patients.
The authors concluded that, although adjusted results did not show that patients receiving acupuncture had better outcomes than non-treated patients, exploratory analyses revealed that patients treated specifically for pain used fewer analgesics and those with high acupuncture utilization incurred lower healthcare costs. Further studies are required to examine acupuncture effectiveness in real-world settings.
Oh, dear!
Which institutions support such nonsense?
- School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California Irvine, 802 W Peltason Dr, Irvine, CA, 92697-4625, USA.
- School of Pharmacy, Chapman University, RK 94-206, 9401 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA.
- College of Korean Medicine, Kyung Hee University, Seoul, South Korea.
- Integrative Medicine Program, Departments of Supportive Care Medicine and Medical Oncology, City of Hope Comprehensive Cancer Center, Duarte, CA, USA.
- School of Pharmacy, Chapman University, RK 94-206, 9401 Jeronimo Road, Irvine, CA, 92618, USA. [email protected].
- School of Pharmacy & Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of California Irvine, 802 W Peltason Dr, Irvine, CA, 92697-4625, USA. [email protected].
And which journal is not ashamed to publish it?
It’s the BMC Med!
The conclusion is, of course, quite wrong.
Please let me try to formulate one that comes closer to what the study actually shows:
This study failed to show that a ‘real world impact’ of acupuncture exists. Since the authors were dissatisfied with a negative result, subsequent data dredging was undertaken until some findings emerged that were in line with their expectations. Sadly, no responsible scienctist will take this paper seriously.
Two years ago, I reported about an acupuncture review that was, in my view, a fairly clear case of scientific misconduct. To remind you, here is my from 22/11/22 about it:
Acupuncture is emerging as a potential therapy for relieving pain, but the effectiveness of acupuncture for relieving low back and/or pelvic pain (LBPP) during pregnancy remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to investigate the effects of acupuncture on pain, functional status, and quality of life for women with LBPP pain during pregnancy.
The authors included all RCTs evaluating the effects of acupuncture on LBPP during pregnancy. Data extraction and study quality assessments were independently performed by three reviewers. The mean differences (MDs) with 95% CIs for pooled data were calculated. The primary outcomes were pain, functional status, and quality of life. The secondary outcomes were overall effects (a questionnaire at a post-treatment visit within a week after the last treatment to determine the number of people who received good or excellent help), analgesic consumption, Apgar scores >7 at 5 min, adverse events, gestational age at birth, induction of labor and mode of birth.
Ten studies, reporting on a total of 1040 women, were included. Overall, acupuncture
- relieved pain during pregnancy (MD=1.70, 95% CI: (0.95 to 2.45), p<0.00001, I2=90%),
- improved functional status (MD=12.44, 95% CI: (3.32 to 21.55), p=0.007, I2=94%),
- improved quality of life (MD=−8.89, 95% CI: (−11.90 to –5.88), p<0.00001, I2 = 57%).
There was a significant difference in overall effects (OR=0.13, 95% CI: (0.07 to 0.23), p<0.00001, I2 = 7%). However, there was no significant difference in analgesic consumption during the study period (OR=2.49, 95% CI: (0.08 to 80.25), p=0.61, I2=61%) and Apgar scores of newborns (OR=1.02, 95% CI: (0.37 to 2.83), p=0.97, I2 = 0%). Preterm birth from acupuncture during the study period was reported in two studies. Although preterm contractions were reported in two studies, all infants were in good health at birth. In terms of gestational age at birth, induction of labor, and mode of birth, only one study reported the gestational age at birth (mean gestation 40 weeks).
The authors concluded that acupuncture significantly improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Additionally, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are still needed to further confirm these results.
What should we make of this paper?
In case you are in a hurry: NOT A LOT!
In case you need more, here are a few points:
- many trials were of poor quality;
- there was evidence of publication bias;
- there was considerable heterogeneity within the studies.
The most important issue is one studiously avoided in the paper: the treatment of the control groups. One has to dig deep into this paper to find that the control groups could be treated with “other treatments, no intervention, and placebo acupuncture”. Trials comparing acupuncture combined plus other treatments with other treatments were also considered to be eligible. In other words, the analyses included studies that compared acupuncture to no treatment at all as well as studies that followed the infamous ‘A+Bversus B’ design. Seven studies used no intervention or standard of care in the control group thus not controlling for placebo effects.
Nobody can thus be in the slightest surprised that the overall result of the meta-analysis was positive – false positive, that is! And the worst is that this glaring limitation was not discussed as a feature that prevents firm conclusions.
Dishonest researchers?
Biased reviewers?
Incompetent editors?
Truly unbelievable!!!
In consideration of these points, let me rephrase the conclusions:
The well-documented placebo (and other non-specific) effects of acupuncture improved pain, functional status and quality of life in women with LBPP during the pregnancy. Unsurprisingly, acupuncture had no observable severe adverse influences on the newborns. More large-scale and well-designed RCTs are not needed to further confirm these results.
PS
I find it exasperating to see that more and more (formerly) reputable journals are misleading us with such rubbish!!!
_________________________
Now – 2 years later! – the journal (BMJ-Open) has retracted the article and posted the following notice about the decision:
BMJ Open has retracted this article.1 After publication, multiple issues were raised with the journal concerning the design and reporting of the study. The editors and integrity team investigated the issues with the authors. There were fundamental flaws with the research, including the control group selection and data extraction, not amenable to correction.
I am delighted that this misleading paper is now officially discredited. Yet, I do have some concerns:
WHY DOES IT TAKE 2 YEARS TO IDENTIFY SOMETHING AS FRAUDULENT RUBBISH, WHEN IT TOOK ME ALL OF ~30 MINUTES?
Instead of just insisting on a triumphant ‘I TOLD YOU SO’, let me provide some constructive advice to reviewers and journal editors.
- Many journal editors are to lazy to find reviewers themselves and ask the submitting author to name a few. Having myself published in the BMJ Open (the journal that published the paper in question) I fear that this might have been the case in the present instance. This habit invites poor reviews, e.g. reviews from colleagues who owe a favour to the submitting authors. It does not promote objective reviews and should be abandonned.
- Papers on acupuncture originating from China (as the one in question) are very likely to be biased (or worse), as we have so often discussed on this blog. Editors should be extra careful with such submissions.
- Reviewers who have in the past overlooked obvious flaws in a paper should be banned from further reviewing in future.
- Editors should understand the reviewers’ comments only as guidelines and still have an obligation to check the actual submissions themselves. the responsibility for publishing an article lies with them alone.
- Editors who repeatedly make such mistakes should be dismissed.
I think that adhering to these suggestions might improve the quality of published research … and, by Jove, this would be badly needed in the realm of so-called alternative medicine!!!
