Highly diluted homeopathic remedies are pure placebos! This is what the best evidence clearly shows. Ergo they cannot be shown in a rigorous study to have effects that differ from placebo. But now there is a study that seems to contradict this widely accepted conclusion.
Can someone please help me to understand what is going on?
In this double-blind, placebo-controlled RCT, 60 patients suffering from insomnia were treated either individualised homeopathy (IH) or placebo for 3 months. Patient-administered sleep diary and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI) were used the primary and secondary outcomes respectively, measured at baseline, and after 3 months.
Five patients dropped out (verum:2,control:3).Intention to treat sample (n=60) was analysed. Trial arms were comparable at baseline. In the verum group, except sleep diary item 3 (P= 0.371), rest of the outcomes improved significantly (all P < 0.01). In the control group, there were significant improvements in diary item 6 and ISI score (P < 0.01) and just significant improvement in item 5 (P= 0.018). Group differences were significant for items 4, 5 and 6(P < 0.01) and just significant (P= 0.014) for ISI score with moderate to large effect sizes; but non-significant (P > 0.01) for rest of the outcomes.
The authors concluded that in this double-blind, randomized, prospective, placebo-controlled, two parallel arms clinical trial conducted on 60 patients suffering from insomnia, there was statistically significant difference measured in sleep efficiency, total sleep time, time in bed, and ISI score in favour of homeopathy over placebo with moderate to large effect sizes. Group differences were non-significant for rest of the outcomes(i.e. latency to fall asleep, minutes awake in middle of night and minutes awake too early). Individualized homeopathy seemed to produce significantly better effect than placebo. Independent replications and adequately powered trials with enhanced methodological rigor are warranted.
I have studied this article in some detail; its methodology is nicely and fully described in the original paper. To my amazement, I cannot find a flaw that is worth mentioning. Sure, the sample was small, the treatment time short, the outcome measure subjective, the paper comes from a dubious journal, the authors have a clear conflict of interest, even though they deny it – but none of these limitations has the potential to conclusively explain the positive result.
In view of what I stated above and considering what the clinical evidence so far tells us, this is most puzzling.
A 2010 systematic review authored by proponents of homeopathy included 4 RCTs comparing homeopathic medicines to placebo. All involved small patient numbers and were of low methodological quality. None demonstrated a statistically significant difference in outcomes between groups.
My own 2011 not Medline-listed review (Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies Volume 16(3) September 2011 195–199) included several additional studies. Here is its abstract:
The aim of this review was the critical evaluation of evidence for the effectiveness of homeopathy for insomnia and sleep-related disorders. A search of MEDLINE, AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Central Register was conducted to find RCTs using any form of homeopathy for the treatment of insomnia or sleep-related disorders. Data were extracted according to pre-defined criteria; risk of bias was assessed using Cochrane criteria. Six randomised, placebo-controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. Two studies used individualised homeopathy, and four used standardised homeopathic treatment. All studies had significant flaws; small sample size was the most prevalent limitation. The results of one study suggested that homeopathic remedies were superior to placebo; however, five trials found no significant differences between homeopathy and placebo for any of the main outcomes. Evidence from RCTs does not show homeopathy to be an effective treatment for insomnia and sleep-related disorders.
It follows that the new trial contradicts previously published evidence. In addition, it clearly lacks plausibility, as the remedies used were highly diluted and therefore should be pure placebos. So, what could be the explanation of the new, positive result?
As far as I can see, there are the following possibilities:
- some undetected/undisclosed bias,
- homeopathy works after all.
I would be most grateful, if someone could help solving this puzzle for me (if needed, I can send you the full text of the new article for assessment).
The objective of this ‘real world’ study was to evaluate the effectiveness of integrative medicine (IM) on patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and investigate the prognostic factors of CAD in a real-world setting.
A total of 1,087 hospitalized patients with CAD from 4 hospitals in Beijing, China were consecutively selected between August 2011 and February 2012. The patients were assigned to two groups:
- Chinese medicine (CM) plus conventional treatment, i.e., IM therapy (IM group). IM therapy meant that the patients accepted the conventional treatment of Western medicine and the treatment of Chinese herbal medicine including herbal-based injection and Chinese patent medicine as well as decoction for at least 7 days in the hospital or 3 months out of the hospital.
- Conventional treatment alone (CT group).
The endpoint was a major cardiac event [MCE; including cardiac death, myocardial infarction (MI), and the need for revascularization].
A total of 1,040 patients finished the 2-year follow-up. Of them, 49.4% received IM therapy. During the 2-year follow-up, the total incidence of MCE was 11.3%. Most of the events involved revascularization (9.3%). Cardiac death/MI occurred in 3.0% of cases. For revascularization, logistic stepwise regression analysis revealed that age ⩾ 65 years [odds ratio (OR), 2.224], MI (OR, 2.561), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1.650), multi-vessel lesions (OR, 2.554), baseline high sensitivity C-reactive protein level ⩾ 3 mg/L (OR, 1.678), and moderate or severe anxiety/depression (OR, 1.849) were negative predictors (P<0.05); while anti-platelet agents (OR, 0.422), β-blockers (OR, 0.626), statins (OR, 0.318), and IM therapy (OR, 0.583) were protective predictors (P<0.05). For cardiac death/MI, age ⩾ 65 years (OR, 6.389) and heart failure (OR, 7.969) were negative predictors (P<0.05), while statin use (OR, 0.323) was a protective predictor (P<0.05) and IM therapy showed a beneficial tendency (OR, 0.587), although the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.218).
The authors concluded that in a real-world setting, for patients with CAD, IM therapy was associated with a decreased incidence of revascularization and showed a potential benefit in reducing the incidence of cardiac death or MI.
What the authors call ‘real world setting’ seems to be a synonym of ‘lousy science’, I fear. I am not aware of good evidence to show that herbal injections and concoctions are effective treatments for CAD, and this study can unfortunately not change this. In the methods section of the paper, we read that the treatment decisions were made by the responsible physicians without restriction. That means the two groups were far from comparable. In their discussion section, the authors state; we found that IM therapy was efficacious in clinical practice. I think that this statement is incorrect. All they have shown is that two groups of patients with similar diagnoses can differ in numerous ways, including clinical outcomes.
The lessons here are simple:
- In clinical trials, lack of randomisation (the only method to create reliably comparable groups) often leads to false results.
- Flawed research is currently being used by many proponents of SCAM (so-called alternative medicine) to mislead us about the value of SCAM.
- The integration of dubious treatments into routine care does not lead to better outcomes.
- Integrative medicine, as currently advocated by SCAM-proponents, is a nonsense.
Lumbar spinal stenosis (LSS) is a common reason for spine surgery. Several non-surgical LSS treatment options are also available, but their effectiveness remains unproven. The objective of this study was to explore the comparative clinical effectiveness of three non-surgical interventions for patients with LSS:
- medical care,
- group exercise,
- individualised exercise plus manual therapy.
All interventions were delivered during 6 weeks with follow-up at 2 months and 6 months at an outpatient research clinic. Patients older than 60 years with LSS were recruited from the general public. Eligibility required anatomical evidence of central canal and/or lateral recess stenosis (magnetic resonance imaging/computed tomography) and clinical symptoms associated with LSS (neurogenic claudication; less symptoms with flexion). Analysis was intention to treat.
Medical care consisted of medications and/or epidural injections provided by a physiatrist. Group exercise classes were supervised by fitness instructors. Manual therapy/individualized exercise consisted of spinal mobilization, stretches, and strength training provided by chiropractors and physical therapists. The primary outcomes were between-group differences at 2 months in self-reported symptoms and physical function measured by the Swiss Spinal Stenosis questionnaire (score range, 12-55) and a measure of walking capacity using the self-paced walking test (meters walked for 0 to 30 minutes).
A total of 259 participants were allocated to medical care (n = 88), group exercise (n = 84), or manual therapy/individualized exercise (n = 87). Adjusted between-group analyses at 2 months showed manual therapy/individualized exercise had greater improvement of symptoms and physical function compared with medical care or group exercise. Manual therapy/individualized exercise had a greater proportion of responders (≥30% improvement) in symptoms and physical function (20%) and walking capacity (65.3%) at 2 months compared with medical care (7.6% and 48.7%, respectively) or group exercise (3.0% and 46.2%, respectively). At 6 months, there were no between-group differences in mean outcome scores or responder rates.
The authors concluded that a combination of manual therapy/individualized exercise provides greater short-term improvement in symptoms and physical function and walking capacity than medical care or group exercises, although all 3 interventions were associated with improvements in long-term walking capacity.
In many ways, this is a fairly rigorous study; in one important way, however, it is odd. One can easily see why one group received the usual standard care (except perhaps for the fact that standard medical care should also include exercise). I also understand why one group attended group exercise. Yet, I fail to see the logic in the third intervention, individualised exercise plus manual therapy.
Individualised exercise is likely to be superior to group exercise. If the researchers wanted to test this hypothesis, they should not have added the manual therapy. If they wanted to find out whether manual therapy is better that the other two treatments, they should not have added individualised exercise. As it stands, they cannot claim that either manual therapy or individualised exercise are effective (yet, I am sure that the chiropractic fraternity will claim that this study shows their treatment to be indicated for LSS [three of the authors are chiropractors and the 1st author seems to have a commercial interest in the matter!]).
Manual therapy procedures used in this trial included:
- lumbar distraction mobilization,
- hip joint mobilization,
- side posture lumbar/sacroiliac joint mobilization,
- and neural mobilization.
Is there any good reason to assume that these interventions work for LSS? I doubt it!
And this is what makes the new study odd, in my view. Assuming I am correct in speculating that individualised exercise is better than group exercise, the trial would have yielded a similarly positive result, if the researchers had offered, instead of the manual therapy, a packet of cigarettes, a cup of tea, a chocolate bar, or swinging a dead cat. In other words, if someone had wanted to make a useless therapy appear to be effective, they could not have chosen a better trial design.
And why do I find such studies objectionable?
Mainly because they deliberately mislead many of us. In the present case, many non-critical observers might conclude that manual therapy is effective for LSS. Yet, the truth could well be that it is useless or even harmful (assuming that the effect size of individualised exercise is large, adding a harmful therapy would still render the combination effective). To put it bluntly, such trials
- could harm patients,
- might waste money,
- and hinder progress.
Benign prostate hypertrophy (BPH) affects many men aged 50 and older. It is caused by an enlargement of the prostate resulting in difficulties to urinate and to fully empty the bladder. There are several conventional treatment options, including life-style changes that are effective. In addition, a myriad of alternative therapies are being promoted, most of which are of doubtful effectiveness. Recently, a homeopathy-promoter, Dr Jens Behnke, triumphantly tweeted a trial of homeopathy for BPH allegedly proving that homeopathy does work after all. There is no conceivable reason why homeopathic remedies should have any effect on this (or any other) condition. Therefore, I decided to have a closer look at this paper.
The objective of this 5-centre, three-armed, open, randomised study was to evaluate the effectiveness of Homoeopathic Constitutional remedy (HC) and Homoeopathic Constitutional + Organ remedy (HCOM) in comparison to Placebo (PL) in patients suffering from BPH using International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), ultrasonographic changes in prostate volume, post-void residual urine, uroflowmetry and in WHO Quality of Life (QOL)-BREF. Patients were randomised into three groups in 2:2:1 ratio and were followed up for 6 months. The statistical analysis was done with modified intention-to-treat principle (mITT).
Of 461 patients screened, 254 patients were enrolled in the study and 241 patients were analysed as per mITT. The mean changes in IPSS and QOL due to urinary symptoms from baseline to end of study showed a positive trend in all the three groups. However, in the HC group, the changes were more prominent as compared to the other two groups. There was no difference between HC and HCOM groups and they were equally effective in terms of managing lower urinary tract symptoms due to BPH. With regard to secondary outcome, there was no difference between the groups. The psychological, social and environmental domains of WHOQOL-BREF have shown positive trend, but there was no statistically significant difference in intervention groups.
The authors concluded that statistical significance was found in the IPSS in all the three groups but only in HC and not in any of the objective parameters.
The paper is so badly written that I struggle to make sense of it. However, the above graph seems clear enough. The changes are perhaps statistically significant (which I find odd and cannot quite understand) but they are certainly not clinically relevant. Most likely, they are due to the fact that this study was not blind, meaning that patients and investigators were aware of the group allocations. This suggests to me that this study
- is dubious in more than one way,
- tests a hypothesis that lacks plausibility,
- yields a result that is clinically irrelevant.
In other words, it does not amount to anything remotely resembling a proof of homeopathy’s efficacy.
You probably know what yoga is. But what is FODMAP? It stands for fermentable oligosaccharides, disaccharides, monosaccharides and polyols, more commonly known as carbohydrates. In essence, FODMAPs are carbohydrates found in a wide range of foods including onions, garlic, mushrooms, apples, lentils, rye and milk. These sugars are poorly absorbed, pass through the small intestine and enter the colon . There they are fermented by bacteria a process that produces gas which stretches the sensitive bowel causing bloating, wind and sometimes even pain. This can also cause water to move into and out of the colon, causing diarrhoea, constipation or a combination of both. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) makes people more susceptible to such problems.
During a low FODMAP diet these carbohydrates are eliminated usually for six to eight weeks. Subsequently, small amounts of FODMAP foods are gradually re-introduced to find a level of symptom-free tolerance. The question is, does the low FODMAP diet work?
This study examined the effect of a yoga-based intervention vs a low FODMAP diet on patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Fifty-nine patients with IBS undertook a randomised controlled trial involving yoga or a low FODMAP diet for 12 weeks. Patients in the yoga group received two sessions weekly, while patients in the low FODMAP group received a total of three sessions of nutritional counselling. The primary outcome was a change in gastrointestinal symptoms (IBS-SSS). Secondary outcomes explored changes in quality of life (IBS-QOL), health (SF-36), perceived stress (CPSS, PSQ), body awareness (BAQ), body responsiveness (BRS) and safety of the interventions. Outcomes were examined in weeks 12 and 24 by assessors “blinded” to patients’ group allocation.
No statistically significant difference was found between the intervention groups, with regard to IBS-SSS score, at either 12 or 24 weeks. Within-group comparisons showed statistically significant effects for yoga and low FODMAP diet at both 12 and 24 weeks. Comparable within-group effects occurred for the other outcomes. One patient in each intervention group experienced serious adverse events and another, also in each group, experienced nonserious adverse events.
The authors concluded that patients with irritable bowel syndrome might benefit from yoga and a low-FODMAP diet, as both groups showed a reduction in gastrointestinal symptoms. More research on the underlying mechanisms of both interventions is warranted, as well as exploration of potential benefits from their combined use.
Technically, this study is an equivalence study comparing two interventions. Such trials only make sense, if one of the two treatments have been proven to be effective. This is, however, not the case. Moreover, equivalence studies require much larger sample sizes than the 59 patients included here.
What follows is that this trial is pure pseudoscience and the positive conclusion of this study is not warranted. The authors have, in my view, demonstrated a remarkable level of ignorance regarding clinical research. None of this is all that unusual in the realm of alternative medicine; sadly, it seems more the rule than the exception.
What might make this lack of research know-how more noteworthy is something else: starting in January 2019, one of the lead authors of this piece of pseudo-research (Prof. Dr. med. Jost Langhorst) will be the director of the new Stiftungslehrstuhl “Integrative Medizin” am Klinikum Bamberg (clinic and chair of integrative medicine in Bamberg, Germany).
This does not bode well, does it?
According to the investigators, the primary objective this study (thanks again Dr Jens Behnke) was to evaluate the effectiveness of homoeopathic remedies in improving quality of life (QoL) of chronic urticaria (CU) patients.
The study population included patients attending the Outpatient Department of State Homoeopathic Dispensary, Ahmadpur, India. Quality of Life (QoL) questionnaire (CU-Q2oL) and average Urticaria Activity Score for 7 days (UAS7) questionnaires were filled at baseline and 3rd, 6th, 9th and 12th months. The study included both male and female patients diagnosed with CU. Eighteen homoeopathic remedies were used. The individualised prescriptions were based on the totality of each patient’s symptoms.
A total of 134 patients were screened and 70 were diagnosed with CU and enrolled in the study. The results were analysed under modified intention-to-treat approach. Significant difference was found in baseline and 12th month CU-Q2oL score. Apis mellifica (n = 10), Natrum muriaticum (n = 9), Rhus toxicodendron (n = 8) and Sulphur (n = 8) were the most frequently used remedies.
The authors concluded that homoeopathic medicines have potential to improve QoL of CU patients by reducing pruritus, intensity of wheals, swelling, nervousness, and improve sleep, mood and concentration. Further studies with more sample size are desirable.
The primary objective of this study was, I would argue, to promote the erroneous idea that homeopathy is an effective therapy. It cannot have been to evaluate its effectiveness, because for such an aim one would clearly have needed a control group. Without it, the findings are consistent with the following facts:
- Homeopathy is useless.
- CU responds to placebo treatments.
- CU gets better over time.
- Regression towards the mean has contributed to the outcome.
- Homeopaths often have no idea about clinical research.
- Further trials are not needed.
- If someone disagrees with my point 6, the sample size is less important than the inclusion of a control group.
It is time, I think, to express my gratitude to Dr Jens Behnke, a German homeopath employed by the pro-homeopathy lobby group the ‘Carstens Stiftung’, who diligently tweets trials of homeopathy which he obviously believes prove the value of his convictions.
The primary objective of this new study was to evaluate the efficacy of homoeopathy for women suffering from polycystic ovary syndrome. This condition is characterised by:
- irregular periods which means your ovaries don’t regularly release eggs,
- abnormally high levels of male hormones in the body, which may cause physical signs such as excess facial or body hair,
- polycystic ovaries – ovaries become enlarged and contain many fluid-filled sacs (follicles) which surround the eggs.
There’s no cure for PCOS, but the symptoms can usually be treated. As so often in such situations, homeopaths are happy to step into the fray.
This single-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled pilot study was conducted at two research centres in India. The cases fulfilling the eligibility criteria were enrolled (n = 60) and randomised to either the homoeopathic intervention (HI) (n = 30) or placebo (P) (n = 30) with uniform lifestyle modification (LSM) for 6 months.
The menstrual regularity with improvement in other signs/symptoms was observed in 60% of the cases (n = 18) in HI + LSM group and none (n = 0) in control group. Statistically significant difference was observed in the reduction of intermenstrual duration in HI + LSM in comparison to placebo + LSM group. Significant improvements were also observed in HI+LSM group in domains of weight, fertility, emotions and menstrual problems. No change was observed in respect of improvement in the ultrasound findings. Pulsatilla was the most frequently indicated homeopathic remedy.
The authors concluded that HI along with LSM has shown promising outcome; further comparative study with standard conventional treatment on adequate sample size is desirable.
This trial might convince believers (mostly because they do not even need convincing), but it cannot convince anybody capable of critical thinking. Here is why:
- According to its authors, this trial was a pilot study; this means it should not report any results and merely focus on the feasibility of a definitive trial.
- Researchers were not blinded, meaning that they might have influenced the outcome in more than one way.
- The primary endpoint was subjective and could have been influenced by the non-blinded researchers.
- 0% success rate in achieving the primary endpoint in the placebo group is not plausible.
- Compliance to LSM was not checked; as the homeopathy group lost more weight, these patients seemed to have complied better (probably due to being better motivated by the non-blinded researchers).
My conclusion is not very original but all the more true: POORLY DESIGNED STUDIES USUALLY GENERATE UNRELIABLE RESULTS.
For some researchers, the question whether homeopathy works beyond a placebo effect is not as relevant as the question whether it works as well as an established treatment. To answer it, they must conduct RCTs comparing homeopathy with a therapy that has been shown beyond reasonable doubt to be effective, i.e better than placebo. Such a drug is, for instance, Ibuprofen.
The purpose of this study was to compare the efficacy of Ibuprofen and homeopathic Belladonna for orthodontic pain. 51 females and 21 males, were included in this study. Cases with non-extraction treatment plan having proper contacts’ mesial and distal to permanent first molar and currently not taking any analgesics or antibiotics were included in the study. They were randomly divided into two groups; one group was assigned to ibuprofen 400 mg and second group took Belladonna 6C (that’s a dilution of 1: 1000000000000). Patients were given two doses of medication of their respective remedies one hour before placement of elastomeric separators (Ormco Separators, Ormco Corporation, CA, USA) and one dose 6 h after the placement. Pain scores were recorded on a visual analogue scale (VAS) 2 h after placement, 6 h after placement, bedtime, day 1 morning, day 2 morning, day 3 morning and day 5 morning.
The comparisons showed that there were no differences between the two groups at any time point.
(Mean visual analogue scale pain score at different time intervals after separator placement in Ibuprofen and Belladonna group)
The authors concluded that Ibuprofen and Belladonna 6C are effective and provide adequate analgesia with no statistically significant difference. Lack of adverse effects with Belladonna 6C makes it an effective and viable alternative.
FINALLY, THE PROOF HOMEOPATHS HAVE BEEN WAITING FOR: HOMEOPATHY DOES WORK AFTER ALL!
Not so fast – before we draw any conclusions, let’s have a closer look at this study. Here are a few of its limitations (apart from the fact that it was published in a journal that does not exactly belong to the ‘crème de la crème’ of medical publications):
- Patients obviously knew which group they were assigned to; thus their expectations would have influenced the outcome.
- The same applies to the researchers (the study could have been ‘blind’ using a ‘double dummy’ method, but the researchers did not use it).
- The study was an equivalence trial (it did not test whether homeopathy is superior to placebo, but whether its effects are equivalent to Ibuprofen); such studies need sample sizes that are about one dimension larger than was the case here.
Therefore, all this trial does demonstrate that the sample was too small for an existing group difference in favour of Ibuprofen to show.
So sorry, my homeopathic friends!
Ginkgo biloba is a well-researched herbal medicine which has shown promise for a number of indications. But does this include coronary heart disease?
The aim of this systematic review was to provide information about the effectiveness and safety of Ginkgo Leaf Extract and Dipyridamole Injection (GD) as one adjuvant therapy for treating angina pectoris (AP) and to evaluate the relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with meta-analysis. (Ginkgo Leaf Extract and Dipyridamole Injection is a Chinese compound preparation, which consists of ginkgo ﬂavone glycosides (24%), terpene lactones (ginkgolide about 13%, ginkgolide about 2.9%) and dipyridamole.)
RCTs concerning AP treated by GD were searched and the Cochrane Risk Assessment Tool was adopted to assess the methodological quality of the RCTs. A total of 41 RCTs involving 4,462 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The results indicated that the combined use of GD and Western medicine (WM) against AP was associated with a higher total effective rate [risk ratio (RR)=1.25, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.21–1.29, P<0.01], total effective rate of electrocardiogram (RR=1.29, 95% CI: 1.21–1.36, P<0.01). Additional, GD combined with WM could decrease the level of plasma viscosity [mean difference (MD)=–0.56, 95% CI:–0,81 to–0.30, P<0.01], fibrinogen [MD=–1.02, 95% CI:–1.50 to–0.54, P<0.01], whole blood low shear viscosity [MD=–2.27, 95% CI:–3.04 to–1.49, P<0.01], and whole blood high shear viscosity (MD=–0.90, 95% CI: 1.37 to–0.44, P<0.01).
The authors concluded that comparing with receiving WM only, the combine use of GD and WM was associated with a better curative effect for patients with AP. Nevertheless, limited by the methodological quality of included RCTs more large-sample, multi-center RCTs were needed to confirm our findings and provide further evidence for the clinical utility of GD.
If one reads this conclusion, one might be tempted to use GD to cure AP. I would, however, strongly warn everyone from doing so. There are many reasons for my caution:
- All the 41 RCTs originate from China, and we have repeatedly discussed that Chinese TCM trials are highly unreliable.
- The methodological quality of the primary RCTs was, according to the review authors ‘moderate’. This is not true; it was, in fact, lousy.
- Dipyridamole is not indicated in angina pectoris.
- To the best of my knowledge, there is no good evidence from outside China to suggest that Ginkgo biloba is effective for angina pectoris.
- Angina pectoris is caused by coronary artery disease (a narrowing of one or more coronary arteries due to atherosclerosis), and it seems implausible that this condition can be ‘cured’ with any medication.
So, what we have here is yet another nonsensical paper, published in a dubious journal, employing evidently irresponsible reviewers, run by evidently irresponsible editors, hosted by a seemingly reputable publisher (Springer). This is reminiscent of my previous post (and many posts before). Alarmingly, it is also what I encounter on a daily basis when scanning the new publications in my field.
The effects of this incessant stream of nonsense can only have one of two effects:
- People take this ‘evidence’ seriously. In this case, many patients might pay with their lives for this collective incompetence.
- People conclude that alt med research cannot be taken seriously. In this case, we are unlikely to ever see anything useful emerging from it.
Either way, the result will be profoundly negative!
It is high time to stop this idiocy; but how?
I wish, I knew the answer.
This systematic review was aimed at evaluating the effects of acupuncture on the quality of life of migraineurs. Only randomized controlled trials that were published in Chinese and English were included. In total, 62 trials were included for the final analysis; 50 trials were from China, 3 from Brazil, 3 from Germany, 2 from Italy and the rest came from Iran, Israel, Australia and Sweden.
Acupuncture resulted in lower Visual Analog Scale scores than medication at 1 month after treatment and 1-3 months after treatment. Compared with sham acupuncture, acupuncture resulted in lower Visual Analog Scale scores at 1 month after treatment.
The authors concluded that acupuncture exhibits certain efficacy both in the treatment and prevention of migraines, which is superior to no treatment, sham acupuncture and medication. Further, acupuncture enhanced the quality of life more than did medication.
The authors comment in the discussion section that the overall quality of the evidence for most outcomes was of low to moderate quality. Reasons for diminished quality consist of the following: no mentioned or inadequate allocation concealment, great probability of reporting bias, study heterogeneity, sub-standard sample size, and dropout without analysis.
Further worrisome deficits are that only 14 of the 62 studies reported adverse effects (this means that 48 RCTs violated research ethics!) and that there was a high level of publication bias indicating that negative studies had remained unpublished. However, the most serious concern is the fact that 50 of the 62 trials originated from China, in my view. As I have often pointed out, such studies have to be categorised as highly unreliable.
In view of this multitude of serious problems, I feel that the conclusions of this review must be re-formulated:
Despite the fact that many RCTs have been published, the effect of acupuncture on the quality of life of migraineurs remains unproven.