We are living in difficult times, and few things are more difficult than spending the holidays in confinement alone or (possibly worse) with close family. If you do, you need all the help you can get. Here are a few homeopathic remedies (all available from Her Majesty’s homeopathic pharmacy) which, according to the ‘like cures like’ (LCL) axiom of homeopathy, might come in handy:
- Aspirin (Acetylsalicylic Acid) Aspirin is effective for many conditions, for instance, headache. So, taking a high potency homeopathic Aspirin should, according to LCL, give you a headache. It might therefore be helpful for being excused from spending yet another afternoon watching TV with your mother in law. Alternatively, you could, of course, smuggle some drops in her food and solve your problem in this somewhat unethical way.
- Latex vulcani (Latex (condom) In case you want to use the confinement to start a family, this remedy should make it easier to conceive.
- Penicillinum Penicillin kills bacteria, as we all know. Taking homeopathic Penicillium would therefore make you catch a bacterial infection. This could be a welcome change from all this endless talk about viral disease, I am sure.
- Semen humanum In case you do not want to get pregnant, this seems to be the remedy of choice for you.
- Sunlight Blue (Prismatic blue from sunlight) Sunlight Green (Prismatic green from sunlight) Sunlight Orange (Prismatic orange from sunlight) Sunlight Purple (Prismatic purple from sunlight) Sunlight Red (Prismatic Red from Sunlight) Sunlight Yellow (Prismatic yellow from sunlight) Lots of people swear by vitamin D to protect themselves against COVID-19. It is easy to over-dose on this vitamin, and many people will therefore be now suffering from a vitamin D hypervitaminosis with potentially dangerous consequences. If you are worried, I recommend you take all the above remedies. As sunlight normally generates vitamin D in your body, these homeopathics should stop any hypervitaminosis D in its tracks.
- Umbilicus humanus (Umbilical Cord Humanus) Many people have to spend this holiday without their mother. If that affects you deeply, try this remedy.
- Vitamin D (Vitamin D2 + Vitamin D3) Vitamin D2 (Ergocalciferol) Vitamin D3 (Cholecalciferol) If you don’t want to take the sunlight remedies mentioned above for your vitamin D hypervitaminosis (remember: too strong sunlight can cause skin cancer!), try the more direct method of administering homeopathic vitamin D.
So, do take good care of yourselves, stay healthy, don’t over-dose the brandy butter, port, or anything else, and
Who does not like a nice fragrance?
Who would object to aromatherapy?
Nobody, I suppose.
But, if its called THERAPY, we surely must ask whether it is therapeutic. And is aromatherapy therapeutic? Let’s see:
This randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial tested whether patients with post-dural puncture headache (PDPH) caused by spinal anesthesia would benefit from aromatherapy. A total od 50 patients received 15-minute inhalations of either lavender oil or liquid paraffin as placebo. The severity of headache was scored before (baseline) and after the intervention – immediately, 30, 60, 90, and 120 minutes after – using a visual analog scale. In addition, the dosage and frequency of the pain killers as well as adverse effects of the intervention were recorded.
Both groups showed a reduction in headache scores post intervention. However, the headache scores between the groups was significantly different immediately after the intervention in favor of lavender oil (difference: 1.60 ± 0.63, P = .015). Furthermore, it was observed that the mean changes of the headache scores compared to the baseline were significant at each time interval in favor of the placebo group (P < .05), except immediately after the intervention. No significant difference was observed in Diclofenac intake between groups (P = .440), and no adverse effects were noted.
The authors concluded that aromatherapy with lavender oil was observed to reduce the severity of PDPH only immediately after the intervention, while only minimal effects were observed at successive time intervals. However, it is noted that the study was likely underpowered and further studies are recommended to better understand the effects of lavender oil on PDPH and compare its effects to other herbal products or pharmacological agents commonly used for managing headaches.
I find it laudable that some researchers conduct clinical trials even of so-called alternative medicines (SCAMs) which many of us might view as trivial. I find it more laudable that they try to do this rigorously by adding a placebo control group to the study. And I would find it even more laudable, if they did this adequately.
Considering parafin oil to be a placebo in a study of lavender oil inhalation can hardly be called adequate. Placebos are used in clinical trials mostly to account for the expectation of patients. This means that, whenever possible, patients need to be blinded to the group aloocation and the placebo must be indistinguishable from the verum. In the present trial, the patients could obviously tell the difference between the smell of lavender and the absence of any smell in the control group. Thus, their expectation could easily suffice to bring about the findings observed in the study. This means that the trial does not neccessarily demonstrate the effects of armoatherapy, but might (and most probably does) merely show the power of expectation.
How can one design such a trial more rigorously? you will ask.
There are several options. For instance, for the control group, one could use an artificial fragrance not made from natural lavender. Alternatively, one could include only patients who are unfamiliar with the smell of lavender and use a similaryly pleasant fragrance from a different plant as the control intervention.
As it stands, the study – even though aimed at testing the hypothesis that aromatherpy with lavender has specific effects on pain – tells us next to nothing.
… except, of course that it is always worth thinking very carefully about the adequate way to conduct a clinical trial.
This challenge for all homeopaths of the world was inspired by an avid commentator to this blog who, at every fitting and unfitting occasion, insists that those who doubt homeopathy must do a homeopathic proving.
A homeopathic ‘proving’ (Arzneimittelpruefung in Hahnamann’s less confusing terminology) is a test where a healthy person takes a (usually potentised) homeopathic remedy and then carefully notes all the symptoms and sensations which appear subsequently. When Hahnemann ‘discovered’ homeopathy, he took some cinchona and thought to experience the symptoms of malaria. This was the reason why he, after further such experiments, postulated that LIKE CURES LIKE.
To the present day, homeopathy relies on such provings. If we cannot sleep after drinking coffee, it is not unlike a proving of coffee, and homeopaths conclude that potentised coffee is a remedy for insomnia. I have done several provings many years ago, but they never worked the way homeopaths expect. We also investigared whether a related phenomenon, homeopathic aggravations (the worsening of the presenting symptom after taking the a well-chosen homeopathic remedy), claimed by homeopaths do exist at all; the answer was simple: no! In fact, the only people who believe in provings and aggravations are the homeopaths.
All this inspired me to now issue
A challenge for all homeopaths of the world
Here is the deal:
- you, the convinced homeopath, name the 6 homeopathic remedies that you cannot possibly miss when doing a proving on yourself;
- I order them in the potency you wish (only condition: it must be higher than C12) from a reputable source;
- I have the bottles delivered unopened to a notary where I live;
- the notary fills them into containers marked 1-6 (if you wish, you can send the notary empty containers for that ppurpose);
- the notary keeps the code under lock and key that links the name of the remedies to the numbers 1-6;
- he then mails the coded 6 remedies to you;
- you can use the proving method which you consider best and do as many provings as you like (the only limiting factors are the number of globuli in the containers and the time you have to crack the code);
- I give you 100 days for conducting the provings;
- once you are ready, you send your verdicts to the notary (e.g. 1 = rhus, tox, 2 = sulfur, 3 = arsenic, etc., etc.);
- the notary looks up the code and lets us both know the result.
I am happy to pay all the costs involved in the experiment (notary, remedies, postage, etc.). We can also discuss some of the details of this challenge, in case they run counter to your views on provings, rigorous science, etc.
To make sure we both ‘mean business’, once we both accept these conditions (you can flesh out the missing details as you wish), we both transfer a sum Euro 2 000 to an account with the notary. If you want to increase the sum, please let me know; as I said, we can discuss most of the details of my challenge to suit your needs. If you manage to ‘crack the code’ 1-6, the notary will transfer the sum of Euro 4 000 (your deposit and mine) to your account. If you fail, he will transfer the same amount to my account.
The entry into the challenge closes at the end of the year 2020.
Why should you take on this challenge? I can see several reasons:
- You want to prove that provings are valid.
- You want to teach me, and all other critics of homeopathy, a lesson.
- You want to earn Euro 2 000 quickly and without much work.
- You want the sceptics of the world to know that homeopathy is valid (we will report about our experiment fairly and to publish the report not just on this blog, but anywhere you want [provided the editors accept the paper for publication]).
Why do I take on the risk of losing a significant amount of money? Here too, I see more than one reason:
- I do not consider it a great risk; as I said, I did several provings myself and am quite certain they don’t work.
- I know about the implausiblity of the assumption that a remedy which contains nothing has any effects beyond expectation.
- I could do with the extra Euro 2 000.
- If no homeopath takes on the challenge, I shall henceforce declare that homeopaths were unable to prove that their provings are valid.
The HOMEOPATHY RESEARCH INSTITUTE (HRI) – yes we did discuss its activities before – has just published an ‘update’ on clinical trials of homeopathy. Let me show it to you:
We are pleased to share the results of a recent collaboration with Dr Robert Mathie to update his analysis of randomised controlled trials of homeopathy.
The findings from the 5-year update from 2014-2019 are as follows:
Total number of randomised controlled trials
2014: 189 trials of homeopathic treatment for 100 medical conditions
2019: 221 trials of homeopathic treatment for 115 medical conditions
Placebo-controlled trials only
2014: 104 trials on 63 medical conditions
2019: 129 trials on 77 medical conditions
When considering the balance of positive, negative and inconclusive studies, it is interesting to observe the following shifts in the evidence base for homeopathy over this 5 year period:
Positive trials Up from 41% to 45%
Negative trials Down from 5% to 4%
Inconclusive trials Down from 54% to 51%
Me too (but only about the profound ignorance of the HRI)!
One could now point out that the ‘pee counting’ method of reviewing clinical trial evidence is nonsense and leads almost invariably to irrelevant findings. All the positive trials could, for instance, be methodologically invalid, while the negative are rigorous. But this is not even necessary. The triumphant update can be invalidated much more easily.
All we need to do is to remind ourselves of what clinical trials are.
Simply put, they are experiments that test a hypothesis, to be precise, they test the ‘null-hypothesis’: the experimental therapy generates results that are not different from those in the control group. Depending on the data, the null-hypothesis must then be either rejected or accepted by the results of the clinical trial. If it is rejected, the therapy seems to be better than placebo. If it is accepted, the therapy seems to perform just like a placebo.
THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS NEITHER REJECTING NOR ACCEPTING!
The results can not say: “We like the null-hypothesis just as much as we dislike it.” Clinical trials always give a YES or NO answer.
This means the category of ‘inconclusive trials’ is entirely an invention of homeopaths and similar wishful thinkers. In their interpretation, it covers those trials where the null-hypothesis was accepted, while the ‘negative trials’ are studies where the control group had better results than the patients treated homeopathically. But trials that accept the null-hypothesis are negative!
So, what does the HRI’s ‘pee-counting’ update really show?
It reveals that, of the 221 RCTs of homeopathy, 45% are positive, i.e. they suggest that homeopathy was better than the control intervention. That is a sizable percentage, but we might ask how reliable these studies were, what control treatments they employed, and whether they all truly used homeopathy (I know, some used isopathy and some employ homotoxicology, for instance).
The majority of the 221 RCTs, however, are trials where the null-hypothesis had to be accepted. These are the studies failing to show that homeopathy works. In other words, the HRI’s triumphant ‘pee-counting’ update confirms what we have pointed out as nauseam for years:
THE MAJORITY OF THE EVIDENCE ON HOMEOPATHY IS NEGATIVE.
Manual therapy is a commonly recommended treatment of low back pain (LBP), yet few studies have directly compared the effectiveness of thrust (spinal manipulation) vs non-thrust (spinal mobilization) techniques. This study evaluated the comparative effectiveness of spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization at reducing pain and disability compared with a placebo control group (sham cold laser) in a cohort of young adults with chronic LBP.
This single-blinded (investigator-blinded), placebo-controlled randomized clinical trial with 3 treatment groups was conducted at the Ohio Musculoskeletal and Neurological Institute at Ohio University from June 1, 2013, to August 31, 2017. Of 4903 adult patients assessed for eligibility, 4741 did not meet inclusion criteria, and 162 patients with chronic LBP qualified for randomization to 1 of 3 treatment groups. Participants received 6 treatment sessions of (1) spinal manipulation, (2) spinal mobilization, or (3) sham cold laser therapy (placebo) during a 3-week period. Licensed clinicians (either a doctor of osteopathic medicine or physical therapist), with at least 3 years of clinical experience using manipulative therapies provided all treatments.
Primary outcome measures were the change from baseline in Numerical Pain Rating Scale (NPRS) score over the last 7 days and the change in disability assessed with the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (scores range from 0 to 24, with higher scores indicating greater disability) 48 to 72 hours after completion of the 6 treatments.
A total of 162 participants (mean [SD] age, 25.0 [6.2] years; 92 women [57%]) with chronic LBP (mean [SD] NPRS score, 4.3 [2.6] on a 1-10 scale, with higher scores indicating greater pain) were randomized.
- 54 participants were randomized to the spinal manipulation group,
- 54 to the spinal mobilization group,
- 54 to the placebo group.
There were no significant group differences for sex, age, body mass index, duration of LBP symptoms, depression, fear avoidance, current pain, average pain over the last 7 days, and self-reported disability. At the primary end point, there was no significant difference in change in pain scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (0.24 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.86]; P = .45), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.03 [95% CI, -0.65 to 0.59]; P = .92), or spinal mobilization and placebo (-0.26 [95% CI, -0.38 to 0.85]; P = .39). There was no significant difference in change in self-reported disability scores between spinal manipulation and spinal mobilization (-1.00 [95% CI, -2.27 to 0.36]; P = .14), spinal manipulation and placebo (-0.07 [95% CI, -1.43 to 1.29]; P = .92) or spinal mobilization and placebo (0.93 [95% CI, -0.41 to 2.29]; P = .17). A comparison of treatment credibility and expectancy ratings across groups was not statistically significant (F2,151 = 1.70, P = .19), indicating that, on average, participants in each group had similar expectations regarding the likely benefit of their assigned treatment.
The authors concluded that in this randomized clinical trial, neither spinal manipulation nor spinal mobilization appeared to be effective treatments for mild to moderate chronic LBP.
This is an exceptionally well-reported study. Yet, one might raise a few points of criticism:
- The comparison of two active treatments makes this an equivalence study, and much larger sample sizes are required or such trials (this does not mean that the comparisons are not valid, however).
- The patients had rather mild symptoms; one could argue that patients with severe pain might respond differently.
- Chiropractors could argue that the therapists were not as expert at spinal manipulation as they are; had they employed chiropractic therapists, the results might have been different.
- A placebo control group makes more sense, if it allows patients to be blinded; this was not possible in this instance, and a better placebo might have produced different findings.
Despite these limitations, this study certainly is a valuable addition to the evidence. It casts more doubt on spinal manipulation and mobilisation as an effective therapy for LBP and confirms my often-voiced view that these treatments are not the best we can offer to LBP-patients.
Excessive eccentric exercise of inadequately conditioned skeletal muscle results in focal sites of injury within the muscle fibres. These injuries cause pain which usually is greatest about 72 hours after the exercise. This type of pain is called delayed-onset muscle soreness (DOMS) and provides an accessible model for studying the effects of various treatments that are said to have anaesthetic activities; it can easily be reproducibly generated without lasting harm or ethical concerns.
In so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) DOMS is employed regularly to test treatments which are promoted for pain management. Thus several acupuncture trials using this method have become available. Yet, the evidence for the effects of acupuncture on DOMS is inconsistent which begs the question whether across all trials an effects emerges.
The aim of this systematic review therefore was to explore the effects of acupuncture on DOMS. Studies investigating the effect of acupuncture on DOMS in humans that were published before March 2020 were obtained from 8 electronic databases. The affected muscles, groups, acupuncture points, treatment sessions, assessments, assessment times, and outcomes of the included articles were reviewed. The data were extracted and analysed via a meta-analysis.
A total of 15 articles were included, and relief of DOMS-related pain was the primary outcome. The meta-analysis showed that there were no significant differences between acupuncture and sham/control groups, except for acupuncture for DOMS on day 1 (total SMD = -0.62; 95% CI = -1.12∼0.11, P < 0.05) by comparing with control groups.
The authors concluded that acupuncture for DOMS exhibited very-small-to-small and small-to-moderate effects on pain relief for the sham and no acupuncture conditions, respectively. Evidence indicating the effects of acupuncture on DOMS was little because the outcome data during the follow-up were insufficient to perform an effective meta-analysis.
A mere glance at the Forrest plot reveals that acupuncture is unlikely to have any effect on DOMS at all. The very small average effect that does emerge originates mainly from one outlier, the 2008 study by Itoh et al. This trial was published by three acupuncturists from the Department of Clinical Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Meiji University of Integrative Medicine, Kyoto, Japan. It has numerous weaknesses, for instance there are just 10 volunteers in each group, and can therefore be safely discarded.
In essence, this means that there is no good evidence that acupuncture is effective at reducing pain caused by DOMS.
The purpose of this feasibility study was to:
(1) educate participants about the concept of Reiki,
(2) give participants the opportunity to experience six Reiki therapy sessions and subsequently assess outcomes on chronic pain,
(3) assess participants’ impression of and willingness to continue using and recommending Reiki therapy as adjunct for the treatment of chronic pain.
Using a prospective repeated measures pre- and postintervention design, a convenience sample of 30 military health care beneficiaries with chronic pain were educated about Reiki and received six 30-minute Reiki sessions over 2 to 3 weeks. Pain was assessed using a battery of pain assessment tools as well as assessment of impression of and willingness to share the concept of Reiki.
Repeated measures ANOVA analyses showed that there was significant decrease (P < 0.001) in present, average, and worst pain over the course of the six sessions with the most significant effect occurring up to the fourth session. When a variety of descriptor of pain was assessed, Reiki had a significant effect on 12 out of the 22 assessed, with the most significant effect on pain that was described as tingling/pins and needles (P = 0.001), sharp (P = 0.001), and aching (P = 0.001). Pain’s interference with general activity, walking, relationships, sleep, enjoyment of life, and stress significantly decreased (P < 0.001 to P = 0.002). Impression of improvement scores increased 27 % by session 6, and one’s knowledge about Reiki improved 43%. Eighty-one percent of the participants stated that they would consider scheduling Reiki sessions if they were offered with 70% desiring at least four sessions per month.
The authors concluded that 30-minute Reiki session, performed by a trained Reiki practitioner, is feasible in an outpatient setting with possible positive outcomes for participants who are willing to try at least four consecutive sessions. Reiki has the ability to impact a variety of types of pain as well as positively impacting those activities of life that pain often interferes with. However, education and the opportunity to experience this energy healing modality are key for its acceptance in military health care facilities as well as more robust clinical studies within the military health care system to further assess its validity and efficacy.
Where to begin?
- As a feasibility study, this trial should not evaluate outcome data; yet the paper focusses on them.
- To educate people one does certainly not require to conduct a study.
- That Reiki ‘is feasible in an outpatient setting‘ is obvious and does not need a study either.
- The finding that ‘Reiki had a significant effect’ is an unjustified and impermissible extrapolation; without a control group, it is not possible to determine whether the treatment or placebo-effects, or the regression towards the mean, or the natural history of the condition, or a mixture of these phenomena caused the observed outcome.
- The conclusion that ‘Reiki has the ability to impact a variety of types of pain as well as positively impacting those activities of life that pain often interferes with’ is quite simply wrong.
- The authors mention that ‘This study was approved by the U.S. Army Medical Research and Materiel Command Institutional Review Board’; I would argue that the review board must have been fast asleep.
Someone alerted me to a short article (2008) of mine that I had forgotten about. In it, I mention the 32 Cochrane reviews of acupuncture available at the time and the fact that they showed very little in favour of acupuncture. This made me wonder to what extent the situation might have changed in the last 12 years. So, I made a renewed attempt at evaluating this evidence. The entire exercise comes in three parts:
- My original paper from 2008
- The current evidence from Cochrane reviews
- Comments on the new evidence
Acupuncture has a long history of ups and downs. Its latest renaissance started in 1971, when a journalist in President Nixon’s press corps experienced symptomatic relief after being treated for postoperative abdominal distension. He reported this experience in The New York Times, which triggered a flurry of interest and research. In turn, it was discovered that needling might release endorphins in the brain or act via the gate control mechanism. Thus, plausible modes of action seemed to have been found, and the credibility of acupuncture increased significantly. Numerous clinical trials were initiated, and their results often suggested that acupuncture is clinically effective for a surprisingly wide range of conditions. Both a World Health Organization report and a National Institutes of Health consensus conference provided long lists of indications for which acupuncture allegedly was of proven benefit.
Many of the clinical studies, however, lacked scientific rigor. Most experts therefore remained unconvinced about the true value of acupuncture, particularly as a treatment for all ills. Some investigators began to suspect that the results were largely due to patient expectation. Others showed that the Chinese literature, a rich source of acupuncture trials, does not contain a single negative study of acupuncture, thus questioning the reliability of this body of evidence.
A major methodological challenge was the adequate control for placebo effects in clinical trials of acupuncture. Shallow needling or needling at non-acupuncture points had been used extensively for this purpose. Whenever the results of such trials did not show what acupuncture enthusiasts had hoped, they tended to claim that these types of placebos also generated significant therapeutic effects. Therefore, a negative result still would be consistent with acupuncture being effective. The development of non-penetrating needles was aimed at avoiding such problems. These “stage dagger”-like devices are physiologically inert and patients cannot tell them from real acupuncture. Thus, they fulfil the criteria for a reasonably good placebo.
The seemingly difficult question of whether acupuncture works had become complex—what type of acupuncture, for what condition, compared with no treatment, standard therapy, or to placebo, and what type of placebo? Meanwhile, hundreds of controlled clinical trials had become available, and their results were far from uniform. In this situation, systematic reviews might be helpful in establishing the truth, particularly Cochrane reviews, which tend to be more rigorous, transparent, independent, and up-to-date than other reviews. The traditional Chinese concept of acupuncture as a panacea is reflected in the fact that 32 Cochrane reviews are currently (January 2008) available, and a further 35 protocols have been registered. The notion of acupuncture as a “heal all” is not supported by the conclusions of these articles. After discarding reviews that are based on only 3 or fewer primary studies, only 2 evidence-based indications emerge: nausea/vomiting and headache. Even this evidence has to be interpreted with caution; recent trials using the above-mentioned “stage-dagger” devices as placebos suggest that acupuncture has no specific effects in either of these conditions.
Further support for the hypothesis that acupuncture is largely devoid of specific therapeutic effects comes from a series of 8 large randomized controlled trials (RCTs) initiated by German health insurers (Figure). These studies had a similar, 3-parallel-group design: pain patients were randomized to receive either real acupuncture, shallow needling as a placebo control, or no acupuncture. Even though not entirely uniform, the results of these studies tend to demonstrate no or only small differences in terms of analgesic effects between real and placebo acupuncture. Yet, considerable differences were observed between the groups receiving either type of acupuncture and the group that had no acupuncture at all.
The most recent, as-yet-unpublished trial also seems to confirm the “placebo hypothesis.” This National Institutes of Health-sponsored RCT included 640 patients with chronic back pain. They received either individualized acupuncture according to the principles of traditional Chinese medicine, or a standardized form of acupuncture, or sham acupuncture. The results demonstrate that acupuncture added to usual care was superior to usual care alone, individualized acupuncture was not more effective than standardized acupuncture, and neither type of real acupuncture was more effective than sham acupuncture.
Schematic representation of the recent acupuncture trials all following a similar 3-group design. These 8 randomized controlled trials related to chronic back pain, migraine, tension headache, and knee osteoarthritis (2 trials for each indication). Their total sample size was in excess of 5000. Patients in the “no acupuncture” group received either standard care or were put on a waiting list. Sham acupuncture consisted of shallow needling at non-acupuncture points. Real acupuncture was semi-standardized. The differences between the effects of both types of acupuncture and no acupuncture were highly significant in each study. The differences between sham and real acupuncture were, with the exception of osteoarthritis, not statistically significant.
Enthusiasts employ such findings to argue that, in a pragmatic sense, acupuncture is demonstrably useful: it is clearly better than no acupuncture at all. Even if it were merely a placebo, what really matters is to alleviate pain of suffering patients, never mind the mechanism of action. Others are not so sure and point out that all well-administrated treatments, even those that generate effects beyond placebo, will induce a placebo response. A treatment that generates only non-specific effects (for conditions that are amenable to specific treatments) cannot be categorized as truly effective or useful, they insist.
So, after 3 decades of intensive research, is the end of acupuncture nigh? Given its many supporters, acupuncture is bound to survive the current wave of negative evidence, as it has survived previous threats. What has changed, however, is that, for the first time in its long history, acupuncture has been submitted to rigorous science—and conclusively failed the test.
[references in the original paper]
Part 2 will be posted tomorrow.
The systematic review assessed the evidence of Craniosacral Therapy (CST) for the treatment of chronic pain. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the effects of CST in chronic pain patients were eligible. Pain intensity and functional disability were the primary outcomes. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane tool.
Ten RCTs with a total of 681 patients suffering from neck and back pain, migraine, headache, fibromyalgia, epicondylitis, and pelvic girdle pain were included.
Compared to treatment as usual, CST showed greater post intervention effects on:
- pain intensity (SMD=-0.32, 95%CI=[−0.61,-0.02])
- disability (SMD=-0.58, 95%CI=[−0.92,-0.24]).
Compared to manual/non-manual sham, CST showed greater post intervention effects on:
- pain intensity (SMD=-0.63, 95%CI=[−0.90,-0.37])
- disability (SMD=-0.54, 95%CI=[−0.81,-0.28]) ;
Compared to active manual treatments, CST showed greater post intervention effects on:
- pain intensity (SMD=-0.53, 95%CI=[−0.89,-0.16])
- disability (SMD=-0.58, 95%CI=[−0.95,-0.21]) .
At six months, CST showed greater effects on pain intensity (SMD=-0.59, 95%CI=[−0.99,-0.19]) and disability (SMD=-0.53, 95%CI=[−0.87,-0.19]) versus sham. Secondary outcomes were all significantly more improved in CST patients than in other groups, except for six-month mental quality of life versus sham. Sensitivity analyses revealed robust effects of CST against most risk of bias domains. Five of the 10 RCTs reported safety data. No serious adverse events occurred. Minor adverse events were equally distributed between the groups.
The authors concluded that, in patients with chronic pain, this meta-analysis suggests significant and robust effects of CST on pain and function lasting up to six months. More RCTs strictly following CONSORT are needed to further corroborate the effects and safety of CST on chronic pain.
Robust effects! This looks almost convincing, particularly to an uncritical proponent of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM). However, a bit of critical thinking quickly discloses numerous problems, not with this (technically well-made) review, but with the interpretation of its results and the conclusions. Let me mention a few that spring into my mind:
- The literature searches were concluded in August 2018; why publish the paper only in 2020? Meanwhile, there might have been further studies which would render the review outdated even on the day it was published. (I know that there are many reasons for such a delay, but a responsible journal editor must insist on an update of the searches before publication.)
- Comparisons to ‘treatment as usual’ do not control for the potentially important placebo effects of CST and thus tell us nothing about the effectiveness of CST per se.
- The same applies to comparisons to ‘active’ manual treatments and ‘non-manual’ sham (the purpose of a sham is to blind patients; a non-manual sham defies this purpose).
- This leaves us with exactly two trials employing a sham that might have been sufficiently credible to be able to fool patients into believing that they were receiving the verum.
- One of these trials (ref 44) is far too flimsy to be taken seriously: it was tiny (n=23), did not adequately blind patients, and failed to mention adverse effects (thus violating research ethics [I cannot take such trials seriously]).
- The other trial (ref 41) is by the same research group as the review, and the authors award themselves a higher quality score than any other of the primary studies (perhaps even correctly, because the other trials are even worse). Yet, their study has considerable weaknesses which they fail to discuss: it was small (n=54), there was no check to see whether patient-blinding was successful, and – as with all the CST studies – the therapist was, of course, no blind. The latter point is crucial, I think, because patients can easily be influenced by the therapists via verbal or non-verbal communication to report the findings favoured by the therapist. This means that the small effects seen in such studies are likely to be due to this residual bias and thus have nothing to do with the intervention per se.
- Despite the fact that the review findings depend critically on their own primary study, the authors of the review declared that they have no conflict of interest.
Considering all this plus the rather important fact that CST completely lacks biological plausibility, I do not think that the conclusions of the review are warranted. I much prefer the ones from my own systematic review of 2012. It included 6 RCTs (all of which were burdened with a high risk of bias) and concluded that the notion that CST is associated with more than non‐specific effects is not based on evidence from rigorous RCTs.
So, why do the review authors first go to the trouble of conducting a technically sound systematic review and meta-analysis and then fail utterly to interpret its findings critically? I might have an answer to this question. Back in 2016, I included the head of this research group, Gustav Dobos, into my ‘hall of fame’ because he is one of the many SCAM researchers who never seem to publish a negative result. This is what I then wrote about him:
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:
- all alternative therapies are effective,
- the ‘Trustworthiness Index’ of Prof Dobos is unusual.
I let my readers chose which possibility they deem to be more likely.
Radiation-induced xerostomia (RIX) is a common, often debilitating, adverse effect of radiation therapy among patients with head and neck cancer. Quality of life can be severely affected, and current treatments have limited benefit. Acupuncture is often recommended, but does it work? This study was aimed at finding out whether acupuncture can prevent RIX in patients with head and neck cancer undergoing radiation therapy.
The 2-center, phase 3, randomized clinical trial compared a standard care control (SCC) with true acupuncture (TA) and sham acupuncture (SA) among patients with oropharyngeal or nasopharyngeal carcinoma who were undergoing radiation therapy in comprehensive cancer centres in the United States and China. Patients were enrolled between December 16, 2011, and July 7, 2015. Final follow-up was August 15, 2016. Analyses were conducted February 1 through 28, 2019. Either TA or SA using a validated acupuncture placebo device were performed 3 times per week during a 6- to 7-week course of radiation therapy. The primary end point was RIX, as determined by the Xerostomia Questionnaire in which a higher score indicates worse RIX, for combined institutions 1 year after radiation therapy ended. Secondary outcomes included incidence of clinically significant xerostomia (score >30), salivary flow, quality of life, salivary constituents, and role of baseline expectancy related to acupuncture on outcomes.
Of 399 patients randomized, 339 were included in the final analysis, including 112 patients in the TA group, 115 patients in the SA group, and 112 patients in the SCC group. For the primary aim, the adjusted least square mean (SD) xerostomia score in the TA group (26.6 [17.7]) was significantly lower than in the SCC group (34.8 [18.7]) (P = .001; effect size = -0.44) and marginally lower but not statistically significant different from the SA group (31.3 [18.6]) (P = .06; effect size = -0.26). Incidence of clinically significant xerostomia 1 year after radiation therapy ended followed a similar pattern, with 38 patients in the TA group (34.6%), 54 patients in the SA group (47.8%), and 60 patients in the SCC group (55.1%) experiencing clinically significant xerostomia (P = .009). Post hoc comparisons revealed a significant difference between the TA and SCC groups at both institutions, but TA was significantly different from SA only at Fudan University Cancer Center, Shanghai, China (estimated difference [SE]: TA vs SCC, -9.9 [2.5]; P < .001; SA vs SCC, -1.7 [2.5]; P = .50; TA vs SA, -8.2 [2.5]; P = .001), and SA was significantly different from SCC only at the University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, Texas (estimated difference [SE]: TA vs SCC, -8.1 [3.4]; P = .016; SA vs SCC, -10.5 [3.3]; P = .002; TA vs SA, 2.4 [3.2]; P = .45).
The authors concluded that this randomized clinical trial found that TA resulted in significantly fewer and less severe RIX symptoms 1 year after treatment vs SCC. However, further studies are needed to confirm clinical relevance and generalizability of this finding and to evaluate inconsistencies in response to sham acupuncture between patients in the United States and China.
In essence this two-centre study shows that:
- real acupuncture is better than usual care, but the effect size is small and of doubtful clinical relevance;
- real acupuncture is not significantly better than sham acupuncture;
- the findings differ remarkably between the US and the Chinese centre.
I find the last point the most interesting one. We know from previous research that acupuncture studies from China are notoriously unreliable; they never report a negative result and there is evidence that data fabrication is rife in China. The new findings seems to throw more light on this notion. In the US centre, real and sham acupuncture generated practically identical results. By contrast, in the Chinese centre, real acupuncture generated significantly better results than sham. The authors offer several hypotheses to explain this remarkable phenomenon. Yet, in my view, the most likely one is that Chinese researchers are determined to show that acupuncture is effective. Thus all sorts of unconscious or even conscious biases might get introduced into such studies.
In essence, trial therefore confirms that acupuncture is little more than a theatrical placebo, particularly if we consider the US data which, in my opinion, are more trustworthy.
Lorenzo Cohen, Professor of Palliative, Rehabilitation, and Integrative Medicine and director of the Integrative Medicine Program as well as senior author of the paper unsurprisingly disagrees. He was quoted saying: “The evidence is to a point where patients should incorporate acupuncture alongside radiation treatment as a way to prevent the severity of dry mouth symptoms. I think with this study we can add acupuncture to the list for the prevention and treatment of xerostomia, and the guidelines for the use of acupuncture in the oncology setting should be revised to include this important chronic condition.”
Who do you think is closer to the truth?