Magnetic bracelets and British Medical Journal

[steenkh]

I just read in my local Danish newspaper Politiken that the British Medical Journal has published a positive test of magnetic bracelets against arthritis. The conclusion is:

Pain from osteoarthritis of the hip and knee decreases when wearing magnetic bracelets. It is uncertain whether this response is due to specific or non-specific (placebo) effects.

Obviously, they have the usual problems of performing blind tests of magnetic bracelets when the patients can easily ascertain if their bracelet if magnetic or not, but understandably the peddlers of magical bracelets are elated! To be fair, one manufacturer asks if it is not time to conduct animal tests in order to find out once-and-for-all if it is placebo or another effect that is at work.

My local newspaper used the opportunity to tell us that there are other alternative treatments that also have documented effects that science cannot explain, e.g. homoeopathy! And then we are told that magnetic sheets and blankets can be used to shield against earth rays!

I wonder why they did not praise the effect of magnetic bracelets against aliens. At least, I have never heard of someone wearing a magnetic bracelet who was abducted by aliens!

 

[CFLarsen]

Obviously, they have the usual problems of performing blind tests of magnetic bracelets when the patients can easily ascertain if their bracelet if magnetic or not...

Not only do they have the opportunity, they took advantage of it:

...it appears that 54% of the standard (strong) magnet group believed they had the real magnet, while 47% of the dummy group correctly guessed (or worked out) that they had the dummy magnet.

Overall, a highly significant number of the patients correctly determined which group they were in (54% of the standard magnet group thought they had the magnet, while only 38% of the weak group and 16% of the dummy group thought they had a real magnet). Furthermore, the results show that the main reason why they thought so was because they detected the magnetic force (32% of the standard group, 20% of the weak group and 6% of the dummy group).
Source

It's not double-blind. It's not even single-blind! People knew if they had a magnetic bracelet or not!

 

[IIRichard]

I just read in my local Danish newspaper Politiken that the British Medical Journal has published a positive test of magnetic bracelets against arthritis. The conclusion is:


Obviously, they have the usual problems of performing blind tests of magnetic bracelets when the patients can easily ascertain if their bracelet if magnetic or not, but understandably the peddlers of magical bracelets are elated! To be fair, one manufacturer asks if it is not time to conduct animal tests in order to find out once-and-for-all if it is placebo or another effect that is at work.
......
I wonder why they did not praise the effect of magnetic bracelets against aliens. At least, I have never heard of someone wearing a magnetic bracelet who was abducted by aliens!

I'm wondering what's going on at the BMJ. I seem to be seeing more loony studies quoted in out local papers. Maybe just my failure to notice when they publish something good or my local paper's commitment to science?

 

[Rolfe]

To be fair, one manufacturer asks if it is not time to conduct animal tests in order to find out once-and-for-all if it is placebo or another effect that is at work.

Unfortunately, observer bias can be an even bigger problem in animal studies, because the observer has to interpret how the animal has responded rather than experiencing it directly. Such a study would only be valid if nobody who was involved in evaluating the animals' responses had any way of knowing which group they were in. Indeed, I'd be very suspicious of any subjective evaluation and I think that only objective measurements would give valid data.

Also, the law relating to animal experimentation is extremely strict, and it is very probable that any proposal to leave animals suffering from arthritis untreated, either as part of a deliberate placebo group or by "treating" with a possibly ineffective method would receive short shrift. A study I read regarding a herbal remedy for arthritis in the dog was rendered all but useless by the insistance of the licensing authorities that the owners of all the animals in the trial had to give them a recognised pain-killer if they thought they were in pain.

Rolfe.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

First, with the majority of research results contradicting this study, there is no reason to think this piddly little study should outweigh other research.

I have to wonder why they even bothered? It is a small sample size, only subjective outcome measured, and poorly blinded. The abstract was suspiciously brief considering many would only read the abstract as the paper isn't available without subscription.

Second, there is an interestingly large number of magnet distributors with responding comments.

Third, no mechanism is even speculated let alone suggested as to why wearing a bracelet would affect one's hip pain.

I ain't buying it.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Re: Re: Magnetic bracelets and British Medical Journal

Also, the law relating to animal experimentation is extremely strict, and it is very probable that any proposal to leave animals suffering from arthritis untreated, either as part of a deliberate placebo group or by "treating" with a possibly ineffective method would receive short shrift. A study I read regarding a herbal remedy for arthritis in the dog was rendered all but useless by the insistance of the licensing authorities that the owners of all the animals in the trial had to give them a recognised pain-killer if they thought they were in pain.

Rolfe.

You could do it with rats. There is a model for localized arthritis which involves injection of complete Freund's adjuvant (CFA). The outcome is change in the animal's reactivity to noxious stimuli. Specifically, prior to injection, the area is exposed to heat, mechanical and/or pressure stimulation. The intensity of the stimulation required before the animals moves away (usually it is the paw) from the stimulation is the baseline. Then inject the CFA. Repeat the pain testing. Usually, the animal will withdraw at much lower levels of stimulation (we interpret this as hyperalgesia). Then, you manipulate your independent variable. Rats with magnetic versus inert paw/leg cuffs (not sure how close it has to be to the painful area) and repeat the pain testing. Change from the hyperalgesic values is the measure of analgesia.

I don't want to get into a whole ethical debate, but to date, it is still ok to have placebo groups on this test.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: Magnetic bracelets and British Medical Journal

I don't want to get into a whole ethical debate, but to date, it is still ok to have placebo groups on this test.

Yes, if you got it licensed as an experiment, with experimental animals, rather than a clinical trial with patients, it would be possible.

I have some doubt whether the ethical committees that look at the potential benefit to be gained from painful animal experiments would be terribly impressed with this idea though. I have even more doubt that any of the magnet-peddlers will ever actually put together a proposal.

Rolfe.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Magnetic bracelets and British Medical Journal

I have some doubt whether the ethical committees that look at the potential benefit to be gained from painful animal experiments would be terribly impressed with this idea though.
Rolfe.

Yes, this would be the biggest hurdle. It is difficult to argue it's worth unless you did it from a skeptical point of view. That is, these data may be used to provide people who are suffering with clinical evidence regarding the efficacy of these treatments which are widely available but not evidence-based. Not sure.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

We don't need animal studies for this research. Just better designed studies.


You can tell your subjects you are evaluating different metals. Tell one group you are testing the copper. Tell a second group you are testing magnets and so on.

You can tell one group you expect results, another you expect no result and say nothing to a third.

You can put the magnet around a wrist, ankle or directly over the hips. Is there a difference?

You can include objective measurements like inflammation, or range of motion.


There are many ways to get around subjects guessing which test group they are in.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Is there a source that has ONLY properly conducted double blinded studies in it?

 

[TruthSeeker]

We don't need animal studies for this research. Just better designed studies.


You can tell your subjects you are evaluating different metals. Tell one group you are testing the copper. Tell a second group you are testing magnets and so on.

You can tell one group you expect results, another you expect no result and say nothing to a third.

You can put the magnet around a wrist, ankle or directly over the hips. Is there a difference?

You can include objective measurements like inflammation, or range of motion.


There are many ways to get around subjects guessing which test group they are in.

This would actually be a difficult study to get approved. You can't mislead patients and the informed consent form has to tell them their chances of being assigned to any condition (and what the conditions are) and what the expected benefits and side effects of the treatments are.

 

[geni]

Is there a source that has ONLY properly conducted double blinded studies in it?

Nope because even if you set out to do this you make a misstake from time to time.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This would actually be a difficult study to get approved. You can't mislead patients and the informed consent form has to tell them their chances of being assigned to any condition (and what the conditions are) and what the expected benefits and side effects of the treatments are.

Who is giving this approval? I doubt there are any laws regulating human trials of magnet therapies.

You wouldn't be misleading anyone about the basics of the study. From your interpretation you'd have to tell everyone whether or not they have the placebo.

Ethics is in the eye of the beholder. From this site:
http://www.msu.edu/~biomed/rcr/humsubjects.htm
I couldn't see any laws except the FDA has specific regulations or "guidance documents" for very specific studies like gene therapy. In those cases you would have laws regulating giving persons drugs and invasive therapies that did cover human trials.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nope because even if you set out to do this you make a misstake from time to time.

That assumes a lot.

A mistake from time to time doesn't mean every time.

From Quackwatch:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10714732&dopt=Abstract No difference when the treatments were applied in the clinic only so the subjects had no chance to go home and "peek".

http://www.japmaonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/87/1/11 No difference when the insole was compared to insole with magnet.

The only studies I've seen with positive results have subjective questionnaires and no description of the blinded procedure in the abstract or a poorly blinded procedure. If someone wants to hunt down a blinded study with clear elimination of placebo effect I'd be happy to read it/them. I haven't seen any.

 

[TruthSeeker]

Who is giving this approval? I doubt there are any laws regulating human trials of magnet therapies.

You wouldn't be misleading anyone about the basics of the study. From your interpretation you'd have to tell everyone whether or not they have the placebo.

Ethics is in the eye of the beholder. From this site:
http://www.msu.edu/~biomed/rcr/humsubjects.htm
I couldn't see any laws except the FDA has specific regulations or "guidance documents" for very specific studies like gene therapy. In those cases you would have laws regulating giving persons drugs and invasive therapies that did cover human trials.

Well, I can only speak for research in Canada. The approval first comes from the funding source. Of course, if you are funded by the magnet manufacturers, you can get away with more, but then your results are less credible. I wouldn't say research ethics is in the eye of the beholder anymore, thank goodness. My research is approved by the university, hospital and funding council according to TriCouncil Standards (these aren't laws). This article although a bit out of date, reviews the most pertinent guidelines which you will see have a long history with wide acceptance.

You don't have to tell people the condition they are assigned to just what each condition is and the probability of their being assigned to it.

I don't have any of my consent forms on this computer, but from memory (with adjustment for our discussion) it reads something like (I'll provide a direct quote tomorrow, if you are interested)

"This study compares treatment A and B. Treatment A is a magnetic bracelet which may relieve your pain. In previous studies, it has been associated with improved pain. As well, XX% of people report this side effect and XX% report that one. Treatment B is also a bracelet made from different metals. It has been associated with XXXX. We are interested in comparing the effects of A and B on your arthritis. You have a 50% probability of receiving A or B. This will be determined randomly. The research staff will not know whether you have received A or B. Should it be necessary to provide the best medical care, information regarding your assignment to A or B is available from Dr. CCCC.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, I can only speak for research in Canada. ....

No one is saying to ignore ethics in human trials I merely wanted to point out your claim about how a study could or couldn't be blinded was a bit more dogmatic than reality would have it.

It would be stupid if a study couldn't be properly blinded due to a 'rule' when the risk of harm to the subject was nil. I think you are taking informed consent out of context here.

 

[TruthSeeker]

No one is saying to ignore ethics in human trials I merely wanted to point out your claim about how a study could or couldn't be blinded was a bit more dogmatic than reality would have it.

It would be stupid if a study couldn't be properly blinded due to a 'rule' when the risk of harm to the subject was nil. I think you are taking informed consent out of context here.

How so? I don't think I understand how I am taking it out of context. We are discussing the information that must be made available to a person with a medical condition (osteoarthritis) that is considering enrolling in a clinical trial which includes a potentially active versus potentially inert treatment. Please clarify if that is not what we are discussing.

My reality is that I run clinical trials. I was just trying to convey the reality I deal with. It is difficult to argue that risk to subjects is nil, especially in a treatment study (one really can't say with 100% confidence that our manipulation would be without risk) and I can't imagine an REB allowing such a statement in a consent form. Even in questionnaire-only studies we include a sentence saying that answering certain questions may be upsetting (for instance on a depression questionnaire) and that patients are free not to answer them for that or any other reason.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How so? I don't think I understand how I am taking it out of context. We are discussing the information that must be made available to a person with a medical condition (osteoarthritis) that is considering enrolling in a clinical trial which includes a potentially active versus potentially inert treatment. Please clarify if that is not what we are discussing.

My reality is that I run clinical trials. I was just trying to convey the reality I deal with. It is difficult to argue that risk to subjects is nil, especially in a treatment study (one really can't say with 100% confidence that our manipulation would be without risk) and I can't imagine an REB allowing such a statement in a consent form. Even in questionnaire-only studies we include a sentence saying that answering certain questions may be upsetting (for instance on a depression questionnaire) and that patients are free not to answer them for that or any other reason.

How do you blind any study if you can't disguise what you are testing for? And how do you study the effect suggestion has on outcome is you can't make suggestions?

Go back to my post and tell me which of the possible study designs you find issue with ethically? You said my suggestions wouldn't meet disclosure standards. That's silly. Maybe you could elaborate a little and we can clear up where we might be misunderstanding each other.

 

[TruthSeeker]

I will, but not tonight. It's been a rough one (see my thread in community if you want details)

 

[TruthSeeker]

How do you blind any study if you can't disguise what you are testing for? And how do you study the effect suggestion has on outcome is you can't make suggestions?

Go back to my post and tell me which of the possible study designs you find issue with ethically? You said my suggestions wouldn't meet disclosure standards. That's silly. Maybe you could elaborate a little and we can clear up where we might be misunderstanding each other.

Thanks for your patience regarding my response.

You can still blind a study and tell patients they are in a blinded study. They don't have to know to which group they've been randomized but they do have to know that the various groups exists. Also, you have to tell them what effects you are expecting. Because you tell everyone this, you are not introducing a systematic bias.

If you wanted to study "suggestion" than you wouldn't have to manipulate the type of bracelet, just the instructions, which of course involves lying to subjects. People of course do study these things but there is a great deal of debate around whether it is ethical to deceive people. Most of the work on pain and placebo and suggestion (like Benedetti's or Price's involves healthy volunteers to minimize the lie and most include at least some chance of getting a real analgesic).

As it is, it is difficult to get approval for a true placebo study. Usually, we compare new treatments to standard care with the promise (if at all possible) that they will receive the active treatment if it proves to be effective. Even then, we have "unblinded" data safety monitoring boards who regularly analyze the data to make sure we aren't missing any adverse outcomes or continuing with placebos after an effect has been shown. The idea of giving an ill patient a placebo and lying to them about it, well...that would be difficult (that is really all I'm saying)

If you wanted to compare the different types of bracelets than you would have a more difficult time justifying deceiving patients. That is, you can't tell one group you are testing one thing and another group that you are testing something else. You have to be pretty straightforward with patients about most aspects of the study. Lots of researchers hate this because it makes things much more complicated.

Perhaps the guidelines for research conduct aren't like this where you work, but it's like that here. Different research cultures maybe. Hope this helps.