Matabiri
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,732
Darat said:What is a placebo needle!? A pointless one?
Prob'ly.
Mentioned here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15561384
Accupuncture is real
- Thread starter Nolan Coppenger
- Start date
-
- Tags
- accupuncture
Prob'ly.
Mentioned here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15561384
Rolfe
Adult human female
Well, for one thing, the ancient Chinese wise culture never performed "electroacupuncture" at all. And for another, pain relief wasn't as far as I know part of what Chinese culture claimed for any sort of acupuncture. The concentration on pain relief is a recent western application. Kinda handy, really, seeing how subjective pain perceptions can be.CFLarsen said:
Rolfe.
NIH press release
Here's a link to the press release discussing this study. It quotes therein that the study was released in the 21 Decemer 2004 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine .
NCCAM press release (part of the NIH).
Here's a link to the press release discussing this study. It quotes therein that the study was released in the 21 Decemer 2004 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine .
NCCAM press release (part of the NIH).
Proper blinding would be double blind, not single.
Only having the patient blinded leaves questions of experiementer bias. As the sham treatment scored 30% and the real treatment scored 40%, I don't see what the big deal is.
Reporting that this study is strong evidence is jumping the gun. Let them do more testing and come back when there are clear results.
acupuncture trial
from what I have gathered from internet reports there were 570 in the study group:
190 received acupuncture
190 recieved fake acupuncture
190 took conventional meds and pain management (control group)
What isn't clear from some of the reports is that those having the genuine acupuncture were also taking their prescribed meds concurrently during the trial.
Also 30% more of those having the fake acupuncture reported an improvement in their condition compared to the control group.
40% more of those having genuine acupuncture reported an improvement in their condition compared to the control group.
By my estimate that is a mere 19 people who received genuine acupuncture reporting improvements above those receiving the fake acupuncture. I suggest that this is hardly statistically significant, especially when taking into account confounding factors such as the use of prescribed meds and the well known problems associated with "self-reporting".
Put another way: Placebo effect.
from what I have gathered from internet reports there were 570 in the study group:
190 received acupuncture
190 recieved fake acupuncture
190 took conventional meds and pain management (control group)
What isn't clear from some of the reports is that those having the genuine acupuncture were also taking their prescribed meds concurrently during the trial.
Also 30% more of those having the fake acupuncture reported an improvement in their condition compared to the control group.
40% more of those having genuine acupuncture reported an improvement in their condition compared to the control group.
By my estimate that is a mere 19 people who received genuine acupuncture reporting improvements above those receiving the fake acupuncture. I suggest that this is hardly statistically significant, especially when taking into account confounding factors such as the use of prescribed meds and the well known problems associated with "self-reporting".
Put another way: Placebo effect.
Matabiri
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2003
- Messages
- 1,732
apoger said:
Well, exactly. Darat said
and I replied saying that, as far as I knew, that was because it was impossible then to test properly, as the tools weren't available.
I have no idea if the placebo needles are realistic enough to eliminate operator bias.
Rolfe
Adult human female
Not a chance.Matabiri said:
There's no way to blind the operator in acupuncture. If you use sham needles, these may even be obvious to the patient, and will certainly be obvious to the operator. And if you use real needles but into "non-acupoints", then of course the operator is aware of what he's doing.
Rolfe.
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
Rolfe said:
Would it not be possible to train a number of new operators, half in the real acupoints and half with non-acupoints. All of the newly trained operators believe they are receiving "real" acupuncture training.
The tester, who also does not know which operator is trained in which technique, then assigns patients at random to an operator - neither operator, nor tester, nor patient would know who is receiving real and who is receiving sham acupuncture?
On a show here in the UK, they got a guy from the local take-away, trained him for ten minutes by showing him an ear with arrows pointing at it, then let him loose on someone who wanted to give up smoking.
The treatment took the form of the Chinese fella prodding the patient with the contents of a pencil case (set-square, protractor etc). After a few weeks, he gave the patient a pack of toothpicks and told him to stick one in is ear whenever he had the craving.
After three months, he'd cut down on the ciggies drastically.
Not scientific, but a good example of probable placebo effect. And maybe a method that could be used to 'double blind' an experiement.
Jeff Corey
New York Skeptic
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2001
- Messages
- 13,714
I heard of a guy who poked himself in the chakras with a sharp chopstick every time he had an urge for a coffin nail. He was a member of a splinter group that preached that needles were too ironey, not woody.
Apparently it worked, but it might have been that xzi place bo effect.
Apparently it worked, but it might have been that xzi place bo effect.
Rolfe said:
Nor in many surgeries and procedures, obviously.
One could make some acupuncture machine, that, unaware to the doctors, randomly selects between real needles and sham, and treats the patient without the patient seeing the needle inserted, kind of like a big opaque box over the area of the patient being treated.
TheBoyPaj
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,640
Sham needles, my bottom.
How can you make something which looks like a needle and feels like a needle, but isn't a needle?
Take a look at this:
http://www.medical-acupuncture.co.uk/journal/1999dec/8.shtml
How would that fool anyone?
How can you make something which looks like a needle and feels like a needle, but isn't a needle?
Take a look at this:
http://www.medical-acupuncture.co.uk/journal/1999dec/8.shtml
How would that fool anyone?
CFLarsen said:
Hardly idjitry, If I have a lot of experience with accupuncture (assuming it is a consolidated and discrete field...), it's going to be hard to convince me that something that doesn't feel like accupuncture really is. But if I've never had a needle stuck in me before, I'll believe pretty much any needle poking is the real thing.
An analogy: Imagine that there are rumors that beer can get you drunk. It would be rather difficult to get a placebo past Michael Jackson (the famous beer critic, not the strange pop-singer and suspected felon) or even a brew master at your average brewery. There are not beer-naïve subjects.
But now, take a couple of people who have never seen beer. All they know is that it's carbonated and gets you drunk. Divide 'em in half. Give one half real beer. Give the other half 7-up. Both are carbonated, so either could be the real thing. These are beer-naïve subjects.
If it isn’t possible to truly "blind" the experiment/research how could acupuncture be tested? I'm assuming medicine has to deal with this issue of not being to disguise or conceal actual treatment quite a lot?
TheBoyPaj
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2003
- Messages
- 1,640
So, the question would be what "scam" methods were used as controls in the study under discussion. Did I miss that detail?
Edit: Oh, there was the bit about the screen hiding the patient from the treatment, but it's not clear about whether they still penetrated the skin during the placebo trials. And the operator must have known what was going on.
So it's certainly not double blind, and it might not even have been single-blind. Blurry vision, at best.
Edit: Oh, there was the bit about the screen hiding the patient from the treatment, but it's not clear about whether they still penetrated the skin during the placebo trials. And the operator must have known what was going on.
So it's certainly not double blind, and it might not even have been single-blind. Blurry vision, at best.
EHocking
Penultimate Amazing
Re: acupuncture trial
"Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or participation in a control group that followed the Arthritis Foundation's self-help course for managing their condition. Patients continued to receive standard medical care from their primary physicians, including anti-inflammatory medications, such as COX-2 selective inhibitors, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioid pain relievers."
(My bolding)
Also - I could only see the results for the acupuncture patients quoted and none for the two other groups? Seemed a little self-serving to omit the total result...
I read this statement as confirming just that. Everyone in the trial continued receiving treatment regardless of the trial group they were in,Stumpy said:
"Participants were randomly assigned to receive one of three treatments: acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or participation in a control group that followed the Arthritis Foundation's self-help course for managing their condition. Patients continued to receive standard medical care from their primary physicians, including anti-inflammatory medications, such as COX-2 selective inhibitors, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and opioid pain relievers."
(My bolding)
Also - I could only see the results for the acupuncture patients quoted and none for the two other groups? Seemed a little self-serving to omit the total result...