MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd.

systematic review

1 2 3 28

An enthusiast of homeopathy recently posted an overview of systematic reviews of homeopathy concluding that the data we do have point towards homeopathy as having an effect greater than that of placebo:

In recent decades, homeopathy has been examined via a number of clinical trials, the number of which now allow meta-analysis. As we can see from the study findings, the type of homeopathy research (ie, individualized vs non-individualized, placebo-controlled vs non-placebo-controlled) can have a strong influence on the results, although trial quality also has a strong effect.

All meta-analyses performed in at least a somewhat open and rigorous manner have found statistically significant effects. This suggests that homeopathy has a greater-than-placebo effect, or at least a strong trend in that direction, when using data from the totality of homeopathy research, or from individualized, placebo-controlled trials. The meta-analyses with questionable methodology, one of which is undergoing government investigation for academic irregularities, have produced negative results, which have been demonstrated to be a direct result of their exclusion of vast swathes of the homeopathic clinical trial literature (based on arbitrary and unexplained criteria), as well as of their failure to differentiate – as Mathie has done – different types of homeopathic research.

The clinical data are flawed. Issues with methodology used in homeopathy RCTs, combined with a lack of research funding, have produced a lack of high-quality trials and data. However, the data we do have point towards homeopathy as having an effect greater than that of placebo.

There can be no argument with this conclusion, aside from possible new data emerging. Anyone who disputes this is going against the existing set of the highest-quality evidence on homeopathy.

His overview is based on the following publications:

Kleijnen, 19911 All types of homeopathy (eg, single remedy vs combination). Methodological quality assessed; 105 trials. Results: Positive trend, regardless of type of homeopathy; 81 trials were positive, 24 showed no effect.
Linde, 19972 All types of homeopathy. Out of 185 trials, 119 met inclusion criteria; 89 of these had extractable data. Results: OR = 2.45 (95% CI 2.05-2.93).
Ernst, 19983 Individualized homeopathy; 5 trials determined to be high-quality. Results: OR = 0.
Linde, 19985 Individualized homeopathy; 32 trials, 19 of which had extractable data. Results: OR = 1.62 for all trials (95% CI 1.17-2.23). Only high-quality trials produced no significant trend.
Cucherat, 20009 All types of homeopathy; 118 trials, 16 of which met inclusion criteria. Used unusual method of combining p values. Results: All trials = p< 0.000036. Less than 10% dropouts: p<0.084; less than 5% dropouts (higher standards than most trials considered reliable): p<0.08 (non-significant).
Shang, 200511 All types of homeopathy; only 8 trials selected from 21 high-quality trials of 110 selected with unusual criteria. Results: OR = 0.88 (0.65-1.19). Result strongly disputed by statisticians.
Mathie, 201413 Individualized homeopathy; of the analysis pooled data from 22 higher-quality, individualized, double-blind RCTs. Results: OR = 1.53 (1.22-1.91) for all trials pooled; OR = 1.93 (1.16-3.38) for the 3 reliable trials.
NHMRC, 201516 Out of 176 studies, 171 were excluded, leaving only 5 for the study. Investigators used unprecedented methods, did not combine data, and are currently under investigation for outcome shopping. Results: Negative results.
Mathie, 201720 Non-individualized homeopathy; very few higher-quality trials. Results: For 54 trials with extractable data, SMD = -0.33 (-0.44, -0.21). When these were adjusted for publication bias, SMD = -0.16 (-0.46,-0.09). The 3 high-quality trials had non-significant results: SMD = -0.18 (-0.46, +0.09).
Mathie, 201821 Individualized, other-than-placebo-controlled trials; 11 trials found, 8 with extractable data. Results: 4 heterogeneous comparative trials showed a non-significant difference. One trial in this group was positive. Three heterogeneous trials with additive homeopathy showed a statistically significant SMD. No definitive conclusion possible due to trial heterogeneity, poor quality, and low number of trials.
Mathie, 201922 Non-individualized, other-than-placebo-controlled trials; 17 RCTs found, 14 with high risk of bias. Results: Significant heterogeneity prevented much comparison; 3 comparable trials showed a non-significant SMD.

Apart from getting the wrong end of the stick when interpreting the results of these papers (see for instance here, and here), there are other rather embarrassing flaws in this overview:

  1. Many older systematic reviews were omitted (including about 10 of my own papers). This is relevant because the author of the above review went beck until 1991 to find the reviews he included.
  2. Several new papers were missing as well. This is relevant because the author evidently included reviews up to 2019. Here are the key passages from the conclusions of some of them:

homoeopathy as a whole may be considered as a placebo treatment.

We tested whether p-curve accurately rejects the evidential value of significant results obtained in placebo-controlled clinical trials of homeopathic ultramolecular dilutions. Our results suggest that p-curve can accurately detect when sets of statistically significant results lack evidential value.

We found no evidence to support the efficacy of homeopathic medicinal products

no firm conclusions regarding the effectiveness and safety of homeopathy for the treatment of IBS can be drawn.

Due to both qualitative and quantitative inadequacies, proofs supporting individualized homeopathy remained inconclusive.

… the use of homeopathy currently cannot claim to have sufficient prognostic validity where efficacy is concerned.

I am, of course, not saying that this overview amounts to anything like a systematic review. It merely gives you a flavour how trustworthy proponents of homeopathy are when they pretend to provide us with an objective evaluation of the best available evidence.

Neurolinguistic programming (NLP) was developed in the mid-seventies. It is a so-called alternative therapy (SCAM) that is not easy to define. Those who started it and those involved in it use such vague language that NLP means different things to different people. One metaphor keeps recurring: NLP claims to help people change by teaching them to program their brains. We were given brains, we are told, without an instruction manual, and NLP offers a user-manual for the brain. Consciously or unconsciously, NLP is based on the assumptions that:

  • the unconscious mind constantly influences our conscious thoughts and actions;
  • Freud’s theories are correct;
  • hypnotherapy is effective.

Wikipedia is more outspoken about it: Neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is a pseudoscientific approach to communication, personal development, and psychotherapy…

Despite the fact that NLP is unproven (to say the least), the COLLEGE OF MEDICINE AND INTEGRATED HEALTH (COMAIH) is sufficiently impressed by NLP to offer a course for GPs and SCAM practitioners. Here is their announcement:

Neurolinguistic Healthcare in association with the College of Medicine brings you a 2-day Introduction to Hypnosis, Neurolinguistic Programming (NLP) and Neurolinguistic Healthcare (NLH). Dr Wong and Dr Akhtar who lead the course are Trainers in NLP and Hypnosis and GPs who apply their skills in daily practice within the 10-minute consultation. The course is suitable for both medical professionals and complementary therapists. This is a limited training event offered by them to share their years of knowledge and skills with you.

You will learn:

    1. A basic overview of NLP and the most useful aspects to use it to begin making effective changes in how you and the people you treat think and behave
    2. An understanding of the NLH model of the mind so that you understand the concepts of therapy using this mixed hypnosis/ NLP approach in relation to health.
    3. The ability to Hypnotise effectively in a very short period of time with practical experience – the ability to go through all the stages of hypnosis – the induction, deepening, therapy, and emergence, including rapid hypnosis techniques. (Hypnosis courses which are less practical often charge in excess of £2000 for this)
    4. Learn at least 3 therapeutic techniques, including the NLP therapeutic techniques which work much better in trance, so using and applying the skills you will learn in hypnosis
    5. Access to an online mentorship programme with Dr Akhtar or Dr Wong for 6 months and who will provide 3x30mins group webinar meetings after the course to ensure any remaining questions get answered and that you are actually going forth to apply these skills. (worth another £600 in value)
    6. Access to an online learning membership site with educational videos and other content like pain relief techniques, papers with therapeutic scripts, etc

This is an opportunity to learn a different way of helping people from doctors who target the 10-minute consultation with fast, effective formal hypnosis techniques and sleight-of-mouth. It is possible to make change happen in 10-minutes.

Note that attending this course will not make you a certified hypnotherapist, but confer you the skills you will learn to use personally and in the context of guided meditations and relaxations that are commonplace now.

And what evidence do I have for stating that NLP is unproven?

Is there an up-to-date and sound systematic review of NLP?

The answer is yes.

This systematic review of NLP included 10 experimental studies. Five studies were RCTs and five were uncontrolled pre-post studies. Targeted health conditions were anxiety disorders, weight maintenance, morning sickness, substance misuse, and claustrophobia during MRI scanning. NLP interventions were mainly delivered across 4-20 sessions although three were single session. Eighteen outcomes were reported and the RCT sample sizes ranged from 22 to 106. Four RCTs reported no significant between group differences with the fifth finding in favour of NLP. Three RCTs and five pre-post studies reported within group improvements. Risk of bias across all studies was high or uncertain.

The authors concluded that there is little evidence that NLP interventions improve health-related outcomes. This conclusion reflects the limited quantity and quality of NLP research, rather than robust evidence of no effect. There is currently insufficient evidence to support the allocation of NHS resources to NLP activities outside of research purposes.

Surprised?

I am not!

I did not expect the COMAIH to allow critical thinking to get in the way of quackery-promotion.

Yesterday, we discussed a paper concluding (amongst other things) that there are insufficient high‐quality RCTs to judge the efficacy of acupuncture for cancer‐related pain. Today, we are looking at one that overtly contradicts this verdict.

This systematic review (published in JAMA Oncology) evaluated the existing randomized clinical trials (RCTs) for evidence of the association of acupuncture and acupressure with reduction in cancer pain. Randomized clinical trials that compared acupuncture and acupressure with a sham control, analgesic therapy, or usual care for managing cancer pain were included. The primary outcome was pain intensity measured by the Brief Pain Inventory, Numerical Rating Scale, Visual Analog Scale, or Verbal Rating Scale.

A total of 17 RCTs (with 1111 patients) were included, and data from 14 RCTs (with 920 patients) were used in the meta-analysis. Seven sham-controlled RCTs (35%) were notable for their high quality, being judged to have a low risk of bias for all of their domains, and showed that real (compared with sham) acupuncture was associated with reduced pain intensity. A favourable association was also seen when acupuncture and acupressure were combined with analgesic therapy in 6 RCTs for reducing pain intensity and in 2 RCTs for reducing opioid dose. The evidence grade was moderate because of the substantial heterogeneity among studies.

The authors concluded that this systematic review and meta-analysis found that acupuncture and/or acupressure was significantly associated with reduced cancer pain and decreased use of analgesics, although the evidence level was moderate. This finding suggests that more rigorous trials are needed to identify the association of acupuncture and acupressure with specific types of cancer pain and to integrate such evidence into clinical care to reduce opioid use.

So, which of the two conclusions should we trust?

Personally, I find the JAMA paper unimpressive to the point of being suspect. Here are some of my reasons:

  • About half of the primary studies are Chinese; and we have seen repeatedly that they are unreliable and report only positive results.
  • Many of the trials are published in Chinese and can thus not be checked by non-Chinese readers (nor, presumably, by the experts who acted as peer-reviewers for JAMA Oncology).
  • I have my doubts about the rigor of the peer-review of some of the journals that published the primary studies included in the review.
  • One paper included in the review is even a mere doctoral thesis which usually is not peer-reviewed in the usual sense.
  • The authors state that they included only clinical trials that compared acupuncture and acupressure with a sham control, analgesic therapy, or usual care. However, this is evidently not true; many of the studies had the infamous A+B versus B design comparing acupuncture plus a conventional therapy against the conventional therapy. As we have discussed ad nauseam on this blog, such trials cannot produce a negative finding even if ‘A’ is a placebo.
  • Contrary to what the authors claim, the quality of most of the included studies was extremely poor, as far as I can see.
  • One included paper which I cannot access is entitled ‘Clinical observation on 30 cases of moderate and severe cancer pain of bone metastasis treated by auricular acupressure‘. Are the review authors seriously claiming that this is an RCT?

The more I study the details of the JAMA Oncology paper, the more I feel it might be worth a complaint to the editor with a view of initiating a thorough investigation and a possible retraction.

 

Are you hungover today? you will be pleased to hear that so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) has a lot to offer – at least this is what its enthusiasts think.

Homeopaths swear by Nux Vomica as the first remedy to think of with hangover headaches, but it is also excellent for headaches from overwork, indigestion headaches and headaches accompanying constipation. Use it when your headache is worse when you cough or bend down, and headaches that aggravate when you move your eyes. If you have overeaten and drunk too much alcohol, you may also feel nauseous and want to vomit to make yourself feel better but find you cannot. If this describes your symptoms then Nux Vomica is the remedy for you.

When I worked as a homeopath, I and others often tried this treatment – it never worked. More importantly, there is not a jot of evidence that it does.

Some people recommend artichoke extract. I say: forget it. Here is why:

BACKGROUND:

Extract of globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus) is promoted as a possible preventive or cure for alcohol-induced hangover symptoms. However, few rigorous clinical trials have assessed the effects of artichoke extract, and none has examined the effects in relation to hangovers. We undertook this study to test whether artichoke extract is effective in preventing the signs and symptoms of alcohol-induced hangover.

METHODS:

We recruited healthy adult volunteers between 18 and 65 years of age to participate in a randomized double-blind crossover trial. Participants received either 3 capsules of commercially available standardized artichoke extract or indistinguishable, inert placebo capsules immediately before and after alcohol exposure. After a 1-week washout period the volunteers received the opposite treatment. Participants predefined the type and amount of alcoholic beverage that would give them a hangover and ate the same meal before commencing alcohol consumption on the 2 study days. The primary outcome measure was the difference in hangover severity scores between the artichoke extract and placebo interventions. Secondary outcome measures were differences between the interventions in scores using a mood profile questionnaire and cognitive performance tests administered 1 hour before and 10 hours after alcohol exposure.

RESULTS:

Fifteen volunteers participated in the study. The mean number (and standard deviation) of alcohol units (each unit being 7.9 g, or 10 mL, of ethanol) consumed during treatment with artichoke extract and placebo was 10.7 (3.1) and 10.5 (2.4) respectively, equivalent to 1.2 (0.3) and 1.2 (0.2) g of alcohol per kilogram body weight. The volume of nonalcoholic drink consumed and the duration of sleep were similar during the artichoke extract and placebo interventions. None of the outcome measures differed significantly between interventions. Adverse events were rare and were mild and transient.

INTERPRETATION:

Our results suggest that artichoke extract is not effective in preventing the signs and symptoms of alcohol-induced hangover. Larger studies are required to confirm these findings.

Is there anything else you might want to try? I am afraid the answer is NO. Here is our systematic review on the subject:

OBJECTIVE:

To assess the clinical evidence on the effectiveness of any medical intervention for preventing or treating alcohol hangover.

DATA SOURCES:

Systematic searches on Medline, Embase, Amed, Cochrane Central, the National Research Register (UK), and ClincalTrials.gov (USA); hand searches of conference proceedings and bibliographies; contact with experts and manufacturers of commercial preparations. Language of publication was not restricted.

STUDY SELECTION AND DATA EXTRACTION:

All randomised controlled trials of any medical intervention for preventing or treating alcohol hangover were included. Trials were considered if they were placebo controlled or controlled against a comparator intervention. Titles and abstracts of identified articles were read and hard copies were obtained. The selection of studies, data extraction, and validation were done independently by two reviewers. The Jadad score was used to evaluate methodological quality.

RESULTS:

Fifteen potentially relevant trials were identified. Seven publications failed to meet all inclusion criteria. Eight randomised controlled trials assessing eight different interventions were reviewed. The agents tested were propranolol, tropisetron, tolfenamic acid, fructose or glucose, and the dietary supplements Borago officinalis (borage), Cynara scolymus (artichoke), Opuntia ficus-indica (prickly pear), and a yeast based preparation. All studies were double blind. Significant intergroup differences for overall symptom scores and individual symptoms were reported only for tolfenamic acid, gamma linolenic acid from B officinalis, and a yeast based preparation.

CONCLUSION:

No compelling evidence exists to suggest that any conventional or complementary intervention is effective for preventing or treating alcohol hangover. The most effective way to avoid the symptoms of alcohol induced hangover is to practise abstinence or moderation.

Yes, it’s true, the only sound advice is moderation!

The current Cochrane review of clinical trials testing the effectiveness of manipulation/mobilisation for neck pain concluded as follows:

Although support can be found for use of thoracic manipulation versus control for neck pain, function and QoL, results for cervical manipulation and mobilisation versus control are few and diverse. Publication bias cannot be ruled out. Research designed to protect against various biases is needed. Findings suggest that manipulation and mobilisation present similar results for every outcome at immediate/short/intermediate-term follow-up. Multiple cervical manipulation sessions may provide better pain relief and functional improvement than certain medications at immediate/intermediate/long-term follow-up. Since the risk of rare but serious adverse events for manipulation exists, further high-quality research focusing on mobilisation and comparing mobilisation or manipulation versus other treatment options is needed to guide clinicians in their optimal treatment choices.

Such a critical assessment must be tough for chiropractors who gain a substantial part of their income from treating such patients. What is the solution? Simple, convene a panel of chiros and issue recommendations that are more prone to stimulate their cash flow!

Exactly that seems to have just happened.

The purpose of the researchers was to develop best-practice recommendations for chiropractic management of adults with neck pain.

A steering committee of experts in chiropractic practice, education, and research drafted a set of recommendations based on the most current relevant clinical practice guidelines. Additional supportive literature was identified through targeted searches conducted by a health sciences librarian. A national panel of chiropractors representing expertise in practice, research, and teaching rated the recommendations using a modified Delphi process. The consensus process was conducted from August to November 2018. Fifty-six panelists rated the 50 statements and concepts and reached consensus on all statements within 3 rounds.

The statements and concepts covered aspects of the clinical encounter, ranging from informed consent through diagnosis, assessment, treatment planning and implementation, and concurrent management and referral for patients presenting with neck pain.

The authors concluded that these best-practice recommendations for chiropractic management of adults with neck pain are based on the best available scientific evidence. For uncomplicated neck pain, including neck pain with headache or radicular symptoms, chiropractic manipulation and multimodal care are recommended.

Let’s be clear what this amounts to: a panel of highly selected chiropractors (sponsored by a chiropractic organisation) has reached a consensus (and published it in a chiropractic) which allows them to continue to treat patients with neck pain.

Isn’t that just great?

Now let’s think ahead – what next?

I suggest the following:

  1. A panel of homeopaths recommending homeopathy.
  2. A panel of faith healers recommending faith healing.
  3. A panel of crystal healers recommending crystal healing.
  4. A panel of colon therapists recommending colonic irrigation.
  5. A panel of supplement manufacturers recommending to buy supplements.

I am sure you get the gist.

 

 

This post is dedicated to all who claim that I never discuss anything positive about so-called alternative medicine (SCAM).

Autogenic training is a therapy developed in the 1920s by the German psychiatrist Johannes Heinrich Schultz (1884 – 1970). It is an auto-hypnotic relaxation technique popular in Germany but less so other countries. (The lack of international appreciation of autogenic training might be related to Schultz’ well-documented Nazi past. In 1935, he published an essay which supported compulsory sterilization of men to eliminate hereditary illnesses. Later he was appointed deputy director of the Göring Institute in Berlin. Through this institute, he had an active role in the extermination of mentally handicapped individuals in the framework of the ‘Aktion T4’, the Nazi’s infamous euthanasia programme.)

Autogenic training  consists of mental exercises using instructions directed at different parts of the body to control bodily perceptions, such as ‘my right foot feels warm’ or ‘my left arm feels heavy’. Patients tend to report an intense sense of relaxation during and after autogenic training. Autogenic training is taught in a series of lessons by a qualified instructor.

Autogenic training should be practised regularly and does not require further supervision. It is thus an inexpensive therapy. The technique is claimed to help for a range of (mostly stress-related) conditions. However, the evidence from clinical trials is scarce and, not least due to methodological problems, less than convincing.

This systematic review was conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of autogenic training on stress responses. A total 11 studies were included in a meta-analysis. They showed that autogenic training decreased anxiety and depression, and increased the high frequency of heart rate variability as well as a reduction of anxiety score by 1.37 points (n=85, SMD=-1.37: 95% CI -2.07 to -0.67), in the studies on short-term intervention targeting healthy adults.For depression, a reduction was noted of the symptom score by 0.29 point (n=327, SMD=-0.29: 95% CI -0.50 to -0.07) in the studies on long term intervention targeting the patient group.

The authors concluded that autogenic training is effective for adults’ stress management, and nurses will be able to effectively perform autogenic training programs for workers’ stress relief at the workplace.

I cannot access the full article because it was published in Korean. Nevertheless, I feel that the conclusions are probably correct.

Why?

Because I know (most of) the primary studies and three of the RCTs are my own.

(Yet, some of my critics continue to claim that I never conducted any positive studies of SCAM)

I have to admit, I only read the DAILY MAIL, if I have to (and certainly not today). This is probably why I missed this article announcing the 1st traditional Chinese medicine to be licensed in the UK.

The plant Sigesbeckia, which has an unpleasant smell, is renowned for its ability to treat aches and pains – including those caused by arthritis.  It is the active ingredient in Phynova Joint and Muscle Relief Tablets, which have just been licensed by drug safety watchdog the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

The directive also made it more difficult for medicines to get a licence as it demanded they had to have been in use for 30 years, of which at least 15 years had to be in the EU. Some Western herbal medicines have managed to gain licences in a process costing thousands of pounds to verify their ingredients. But the Phynova tablets are the first traditional Chinese medicine to be approved.

Robert Miller, chief executive of Oxford-based Phynova, said he was ‘extremely proud’, adding: ‘This has come from years of working with our Chinese colleagues. ‘Britain can now benefit from having access to high quality, regulated Chinese medicines.’ He also said that the company is planning to apply for a licence for a second traditional Chinese medicine, a cold and flu remedy.

Dr Chris Etheridge, a medical herbalist and adviser to Potter’s Herbals, celebrated the ‘good news’, adding that Sigesbeckia, which is not commonly used in the West, ‘offers an alternative to those who prefer not to take non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs for muscle and joint pain’.

But Michael McIntyre, chairman of the European Herbal and Traditional Medicine Practitioners Association, warned that the new product demonstrates the difficulties the EU rules created for supplying herbal products safely to the public.  He said it is ‘almost impossible to satisfy the licensing conditions’.  He added that some people have therefore turned to the internet to buy unlicensed products, but this means they have ‘no idea whether they are safe or effective’.

How exciting!

Exciting enough to do a quick search for the evidence. Are there any clinical trials to show or suggest that this herbal remedy does anything other than filling the bank account of the manufacturer? Sadly, the answer seems to be NO! At least, I could not find a single such study (if anyone knows more, I’d be pleased to stand corrected).

Frustrated I looked at the website of the manufacturer. Here I found this:

Exclusively containing Sigesbeckia extract, Phynova Joint and Muscle Relief Tablets is a traditional herbal medicinal product used for the relief of backache, rheumatic, joint and muscle pain as well as minor sports injuries. Sigesbeckia has been used for thousands of years around the world to relieve painful joints and muscles.

Benefits

– Relief from joint & muscle pain
– Gentle on the stomach
– No known side effects
– No known drug indications or contraindications
– Can be taken with or without food

And this:

What can Sigesbeckia be used to treat?

Traditionally used for arthritic pain, rheumatic pain, back pain and sciatica. Today, Sigesbeckia can be used for;

Backache

Back pain can occur through a sprain or strain, spasms, nerve compression, herniated discs and other problems in your lower, middle and upper back.

Poor posture, lifting and stretching, sudden movements placing strain on your lower back and sports injuries, are amongst the main culprits for causing back pain.

Minor sports injuries

Minor sports injuries can be caused by an accident such as a fall or blow, not warming up properly before exercise, pushing yourself too hard and not using the appropriate equipment or perhaps poor technique.

Rheumatic and muscular pain

Common causes of rheumatic and muscle pain can be due to; tension and stress, lack of minerals, certain medication, dehydration, sprains and strains, sleep deficiency, too much physical activity and sometimes other underlying health conditions and diseases.

General aches and pains in muscles and joints

Overexertion due to a new exercise routine or from a sprain or strain can cause general aches and pains in muscles and joints. But so too can modern day busy life. The impact on our bodies can trigger aches and pains in your muscles and joints and lower your resistance to illness and disease.

The Benefit of Sigesbeckia extract

One of the benefits of Sigesbeckia extract, as used in approved licensed products, is that it has no known side effects or interactions with other medications according to the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC). Always check that the product you purchase is an approved Traditional Herbal Medicine Product in the UK.

In summary: Look after your joints and muscles with Sigesbeckia

Our bodies are all different, and our approach and tolerances will vary. Used for over a thousand years and known for its anti-inflammatory and mobility benefits alongside being used for joint and muscle pain; Sigesbeckia is a herbal medicine that works best when used over time.

Looking for a traditional remedy for joint and muscle relief? Why not try Sigesbeckia?

But again no sign of a clinical trial to back up this plethora of therapeutic claims. How can this be? The answer lies in the directive mentioned in the Mail article. To obtain a licence that enables the manufacturer to make therapeutic claims, a herbal remedy merely needs to demonstrate that it has been in use for 30 years, of which at least 15 years had to be in the EU.

I think I understand the intention of the directive. But I would nevertheless have thought that, 4 years after obtaining a license, the manufacturer could have conducted a study to test whether the product works. In my view this should be a moral and ethical, if not legal obligation. The ‘test of time’ is woefully insufficient and unreliable and no basis for generating progress or securing the best interests of patients.

Considering the total lack of efficacy and safety data, do you agree that the above comment by Michael McIntyre are ironic to the extreme? And do you agree that manufacturers who manage to obtain such a license should be obliged to deliver a proof of efficacy within a reasonable period of time?

Many patients with chronic pain (CP) are prescribed opioids, a situation which has led to the much-discussed opioid crisis. Integrative medicine (IM), which combines pharmacological and so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), has been proposed as a solution. Yet, the role of SCAM therapies in reducing opioid use remains unclear.

This systematic review explored the effectiveness of the IM approach or any of the SCAM therapies to reduce or cease opioid use in CP patients. Electronic searches yielded 5,200 citations. Twenty-three studies were selected. Eight studies were randomized controlled trials, seven were retrospective studies, four studies were prospective observational, three were cross-sectional, and one was quasi-experimental. The majority of the studies showed that opioid use was reduced significantly after using IM/SCAM. Cannabinoids were among the most commonly investigated approaches in reducing opioid use, followed by multidisciplinary approaches, cognitive-behavioral therapy, and acupuncture. The majority of the studies had limitations related to sample size, duration, and study design.

The authors concluded that there is a small but defined body of literature demonstrating positive preliminary evidence that the IM approach including SCAM therapies can help in reducing opioid use. As the opioid crisis continues to grow, it is vital that clinicians and patients be adequately informed regarding the evidence and opportunities for IM/SCAM therapies for CP.

I am unimpressed by this review.

And here is why:

  1. Because of their design, most of the included studies do not allow any conclusions about cause and effect.
  2. The 8 RCTs that would allow such conclusions are mostly of poor quality.
  3. Some of the 8 RCTs are not even what the review authors claim to be. Here is just one example:

Background: Current levels and dangers of opioid use in the U.S. warrant the investigation of harm-reducing treatment alternatives.

Purpose: A preliminary, historical, cohort study was used to examine the association between enrollment in the New Mexico Medical Cannabis Program (MCP) and opioid prescription use.

Methods: Thirty-seven habitual opioid using, chronic pain patients (mean age = 54 years; 54% male; 86% chronic back pain) enrolled in the MCP between 4/1/2010 and 10/3/2015 were compared to 29 non-enrolled patients (mean age = 60 years; 69% male; 100% chronic back pain). We used Prescription Monitoring Program opioid records over a 21 month period (first three months prior to enrollment for the MCP patients) to measure cessation (defined as the absence of opioid prescriptions activity during the last three months of observation) and reduction (calculated in average daily intravenous [IV] morphine dosages). MCP patient-reported benefits and side effects of using cannabis one year after enrollment were also collected.

Results: By the end of the 21 month observation period, MCP enrollment was associated with 17.27 higher age- and gender-adjusted odds of ceasing opioid prescriptions (CI 1.89 to 157.36, p = 0.012), 5.12 higher odds of reducing daily prescription opioid dosages (CI 1.56 to 16.88, p = 0.007), and a 47 percentage point reduction in daily opioid dosages relative to a mean change of positive 10.4 percentage points in the comparison group (CI -90.68 to -3.59, p = 0.034). The monthly trend in opioid prescriptions over time was negative among MCP patients (-0.64mg IV morphine, CI -1.10 to -0.18, p = 0.008), but not statistically different from zero in the comparison group (0.18mg IV morphine, CI -0.02 to 0.39, p = 0.081). Survey responses indicated improvements in pain reduction, quality of life, social life, activity levels, and concentration, and few side effects from using cannabis one year after enrollment in the MCP (ps<0.001).

Conclusions: The clinically and statistically significant evidence of an association between MCP enrollment and opioid prescription cessation and reductions and improved quality of life warrants further investigations on cannabis as a potential alternative to prescription opioids for treating chronic pain.

This study is evidently NOT an RCT!

Most of the 8 RCTs investigate whether SCAM is useful for weaning opioid-dependent patients off their drug. To equate this with the question whether IM/SCAM can reduce or cease opioid use in CP patients is, I think, wrong. The way to reduce opioid use in CP patients is to prescribe less opioids. And for prescribing less opioids, we need no SCAM but we need to remember what we learned in medical school: opioids are not for routine treatment of CP!

So, why do the authors of this review try to mislead us?

Could it have something to do with some of their affiliations and the bias that goes with it?

  • Canadian College of Naturopathic Medicine, North York, Ontario, Canada.
  • Australian Research Centre in Complementary and Integrative Medicine, University of Technology Sydney, Ultimo, Australia.
  • Pacific College of Oriental Medicine, San Diego, California, USA.

What do you think?

Recently, we discussed the findings of a meta-analysis which concluded that walking, which is easy to perform and highly accessible, can be recommended in the management of chronic LBP to reduce pain and disability.

At the time, I commented that

this will hardly please the legions of therapists who earn their daily bread with pretending their therapy is the best for LBP. But healthcare is clearly not about the welfare of the therapists, it is/should be about patients. And patients should surely welcome this evidence. I know, walking is not always easy for people with severe LBP, but it seems effective and it is safe, free and available to everyone.

My advice to patients is therefore to walk (slowly and cautiously) to the office of their preferred therapist, have a little rest there (say hello to the staff perhaps) and then walk straight back home.

Now, there is new evidence that seems to confirm what I wrote. An international team of researchers requested individual participant data (IPD) from high-quality randomised clinical trials of patients suffering from persistent low back pain. They conducted descriptive analyses and one-stage IPD meta-analysis. They received IPD for 27 trials with a total of 3514 participants.

For studies included in this analysis, compared with no treatment/usual care, exercise therapy on average reduced pain (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.7 (-14.1 to -7.4)), a result compatible with a clinically important 20% smallest worthwhile effect. Exercise therapy reduced functional limitations with a clinically important 23% improvement (mean effect/100 (95% CI) -10.2 (-13.2 to -7.3)) at short-term follow-up.

Not having heavy physical demands at work and medication use for low back pain were potential treatment effect modifiers-these were associated with superior exercise outcomes relative to non-exercise comparisons. Lower body mass index was also associated with better outcomes in exercise compared with no treatment/usual care.

But you cannot dismiss so-called alternative medicine (SCAM), just like that, I hear my chiropractic and other manipulating friends exclaim – at the very minimum, we need direct comparisons of the two approaches!!!

Alright, you convinced me; here you go:

The purpose of this systematic review was to determine the effectiveness of spinal manipulation vs prescribed exercise for patients diagnosed with chronic low back pain (CLBP). Only RCTs that compared head-to-head spinal manipulation to an exercise group were included in this review. Only three RCTs met the inclusion criteria. The outcomes used in these studies included Disability Indexes, Pain Scales and function improvement scales. One RCT found spinal manipulation to be more effective than exercise, and the results of another RCT indicated the reverse. The third RCT found both interventions offering equal effects in the long term. The author concluded that there is no conclusive evidence that clearly favours spinal manipulation or exercise as more effective in treatment of CLBP. More studies are needed to further explore which intervention is more effective.

Convinced?

No?

But I am!

Exercise is preferable to chiropractic and other manipulating SCAMs because:

  1. It is cheaper.
  2. It is safer.
  3. It is readily available to anyone.
  4. And you don’t have to listen to the bizarre and often dangerous advice many chiros offer their clients.

Maintenance Care is an approach whereby patients have chiropractic manipulations even when symptom-free. Thus, it is an ideal method to keep chiropractors in clover. Previous reviews concluded that evidence behind this strategy is lacking. Since then, more data have emerged. It was therefore timely to review the evidence.

Fourteen original research articles were included in the review. Maintenance Care was defined as a secondary or tertiary preventive approach, recommended to patients with previous pain episodes, who respond well to chiropractic care. Maintenance Care is applied to approximately 30% of Scandinavian chiropractic patients. Both chiropractors and patients believe in the efficacy of Maintenance Care. Four studies investigating the effect of chiropractic Maintenance Care were identified, with disparate results on pain and disability of neck and back pain. However, only one of these studies utilized all the existing evidence when selecting study subjects and found that Maintenance Care patients experienced fewer days with low back pain compared to patients invited to contact their chiropractor ‘when needed’. No studies were found on the cost-effectiveness of Maintenance Care.

The authors concluded that knowledge of chiropractic Maintenance Care has advanced. There is reasonable consensus among chiropractors on what Maintenance Care is, how it should be used, and its indications. Presently, Maintenance Care can be considered an evidence-based method to perform secondary or tertiary prevention in patients with previous episodes of low back pain, who report a good outcome from the initial treatments. However, these results should not be interpreted as an indication for Maintenance Care on all patients, who receive chiropractic treatment.

I have to admit, I have problems with these conclusions.

  1. Maintenance Care is not normally defined as secondary or tertitary prevention. It also includes primary prevention, which means that chiropractors recommend it for just about anyone.  By definition it is long term care, that is not therapeutically necessary, but performed at regular intervals to help prevent injury and enhance quality of life.  This form of care is provided after maximal therapeutic benefit is achieved, without a trial of treatment withdrawal, to prevent symptoms from returning or for those without symptoms to promote health or prevent future problems.
  2.  I am not convinced that the evidence would be positive, even if we confined it to secondary and tertiary prevention.

To explain my last point, let’s have a look at the 4 RCT and check whether they really warrant such a relatively positive conclusion.

FIRST STUDY For individuals with recurrent or persistent non-specific low back pain (LBP), exercise and exercise combined with education have been shown to be effective in preventing new episodes or in reducing the impact of the condition. Chiropractors have traditionally used Maintenance Care (MC), as secondary and tertiary prevention strategies. The aim of this trial was to investigate the effectiveness of MC on pain trajectories for patients with recurrent or persistent LBP.

This pragmatic, investigator-blinded, two arm randomized controlled trial included consecutive patients (18–65 years old) with non-specific LBP, who had an early favorable response to chiropractic care. After an initial course of treatment, eligible subjects were randomized to either MC or control (symptom-guided treatment). The primary outcome was total number of days with bothersome LBP during 52 weeks collected weekly with text-messages (SMS) and estimated by a GEE model.

Three hundred and twenty-eight subjects were randomly allocated to one of the two treatment groups. MC resulted in a reduction in the total number of days per week with bothersome LBP compared with symptom-guided treatment. During the 12 month study period, the MC group (n = 163, 3 dropouts) reported 12.8 (95% CI = 10.1, 15.5; p = <0.001) fewer days in total with bothersome LBP compared to the control group (n = 158, 4 dropouts) and received 1.7 (95% CI = 1.8, 2.1; p = <0.001) more treatments. Numbers presented are means. No serious adverse events were recorded.

MC was more effective than symptom-guided treatment in reducing the total number of days over 52 weeks with bothersome non-specific LBP but it resulted in a higher number of treatments. For selected patients with recurrent or persistent non-specific LBP who respond well to an initial course of chiropractic care, MC should be considered an option for tertiary prevention.

SECOND STUDY Back and neck pain are associated with disability and loss of independence in older adults. Whether long‐term management using commonly recommended treatments is superior to shorter‐term treatment is unknown. This randomized clinical trial compared short‐term treatment (12 weeks) versus long‐term management (36 weeks) of back‐ and neck‐related disability in older adults using spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) combined with supervised rehabilitative exercises (SRE).

Eligible participants were ages ≥65 years with back and neck disability for ≥12 weeks. Coprimary outcomes were changes in Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) and Neck Disability Index (NDI) scores after 36 weeks. An intent‐to‐treat approach used linear mixed‐model analysis to detect between‐group differences. Secondary analyses included other self‐reported outcomes, adverse events, and objective functional measures.

A total of 182 participants were randomized. The short‐term and long‐term groups demonstrated significant improvements in back disability (ODI score –3.9 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) –5.8, –2.0] versus ODI score –6.3 [95% CI –8.2, –4.4]) and neck disability (NDI score –7.3 [95% CI –9.1, –5.5] versus NDI score –9.0 [95% CI –10.8, –7.2]) after 36 weeks, with no difference between groups (back ODI score 2.4 [95% CI –0.3, 5.1]; neck NDI score 1.7 [95% CI 0.8, 4.2]). The long‐term management group experienced greater improvement in neck pain at week 36, in self‐efficacy at weeks 36 and 52, and in functional ability, and balance.For older adults with chronic back and neck disability, extending management with SMT and SRE from 12 to 36 weeks did not result in any additional important reduction in disability.

THIRD STUDY A prospective single blinded placebo controlled study was conducted. To assess the effectiveness of spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) for the management of chronic nonspecific low back pain (LBP) and to determine the effectiveness of maintenance SMT in long-term reduction of pain and disability levels associated with chronic low back conditions after an initial phase of treatments. SMT is a common treatment option for LBP. Numerous clinical trials have attempted to evaluate its effectiveness for different subgroups of acute and chronic LBP but the efficacy of maintenance SMT in chronic nonspecific LBP has not been studied. Sixty patients, with chronic, nonspecific LBP lasting at least 6 months, were randomized to receive either (1) 12 treatments of sham SMT over a 1-month period, (2) 12 treatments, consisting of SMT over a 1-month period, but no treatments for the subsequent 9 months, or (3) 12 treatments over a 1-month period, along with “maintenance spinal manipulation” every 2 weeks for the following 9 months. To determine any difference among therapies, we measured pain and disability scores, generic health status, and back-specific patient satisfaction at baseline and at 1-, 4-, 7-, and 10-month intervals. Patients in second and third groups experienced significantly lower pain and disability scores than first group at the end of 1-month period (P = 0.0027 and 0.0029, respectively). However, only the third group that was given spinal manipulations (SM) during the follow-up period showed more improvement in pain and disability scores at the 10-month evaluation. In the nonmaintained SMT group, however, the mean pain and disability scores returned back near to their pretreatment level.SMT is effective for the treatment of chronic nonspecific LBP. To obtain long-term benefit, this study suggests maintenance SM after the initial intensive manipulative therapy.

FORTH STUDY Evidence indicates that supervised home exercises, combined or not with manual therapy, can be beneficial for patients with non-specific chronic neck pain (NCNP). The objective of the study is to investigate the efficacy of preventive spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) compared to a no treatment group in NCNP patients. Another objective is to assess the efficacy of SMT with and without a home exercise program.Ninety-eight patients underwent a short symptomatic phase of treatment before being randomly allocated to either an attention-group (n = 29), a SMT group (n = 36) or a SMT + exercise group (n = 33). The preventive phase of treatment, which lasted for 10 months, consisted of meeting with a chiropractor every two months to evaluate and discuss symptoms (attention-control group), 1 monthly SMT session (SMT group) or 1 monthly SMT session combined with a home exercise program (SMT + exercise group). The primary and secondary outcome measures were represented by scores on a 10-cm visual analog scale (VAS), active cervical ranges of motion (cROM), the neck disability index (NDI) and the Bournemouth questionnaire (BQ). Exploratory outcome measures were scored on the Fear-avoidance Behaviour Questionnaire (FABQ) and the SF-12 Questionnaire. Our results show that, in the preventive phase of the trial, all 3 groups showed primary and secondary outcomes scores similar to those obtain following the non-randomised, symptomatic phase. No group difference was observed for the primary, secondary and exploratory variables. Significant improvements in FABQ scores were noted in all groups during the preventive phase of the trial. However, no significant change in health related quality of life (HRQL) was associated with the preventive phase. This study hypothesised that participants in the combined intervention group would have less pain and disability and better function than participants from the 2 other groups during the preventive phase of the trial. This hypothesis was not supported by the study results. Lack of a treatment specific effect is discussed in relation to the placebo and patient provider interactions in manual therapies. Further research is needed to delineate the specific and non-specific effects of treatment modalities to prevent unnecessary disability and to minimise morbidity related to NCNP. Additional investigation is also required to identify the best strategies for secondary and tertiary prevention of NCNP.

__________________________________________________________________________

I honestly do not think that the findings from these 4 small trials justify the far-reaching conclusion that Maintenance Care can be considered an evidence-based method… For that statement to be evidence-based, one would need to see more and better studies. Therefore, the honest conclusion, I think, is that maintenance care is not supported by sound evidence for effectiveness; as chiropractic manipulations are costly and not risk-free, its risk/benefit balance fails to be positive. Therefore, this approach cannot be recommended.

1 2 3 28
Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted but you must tick the box: “Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.”

The most recent comments from all posts can be seen here.

Archives
Categories