I suppose if I didn't have a shred of evidence for claims, I'd go with the ol' pharma shill gambit too.
"Conclusions: Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture."
This is from peer-reviewed journal.
The night is dark and full of terrors...
I don't believe in that nonsense.
my question is to the ppl that say it dont work, who did not have a personal treatment them selfs.
How do you know this dont work ?
And dont say cuz goodle told you.
- Thanks Axalicious for this awesome sig.
Here's the actual study.
The problem with this study is that it's a meta-analysis that includes numerous studies of poor quality, giving more than a bit of a garbage in-garbage out result. Here's their method:
Do you see the problem? They included studies that don't actually have control group. That severely biases the end results. Putting studies together that aren't at all comparing the same treatments is a poor approach to a meta-study, to put it lightly.Randomized controlled trials were eligible for analysis if they included at least 1 group receiving acupuncture needling and 1 group receiving either sham (placebo) acupuncture or no-acupuncture control. The RCTs must have accrued patients with 1 of 4 indications—nonspecific back or neck pain, shoulder pain, chronic headache, or osteoarthritis—with the additional criterion that the current episode of pain must be of at least 4 weeks duration for musculoskeletal disorders. There was no restriction on the type of outcomemeasure, although we specified that the primary end point must be measured more than 4 weeks after the initial acupuncture treatment.
If you check what they're measuring, they're basically assigning pain scores and looking for statistically significant differences; a problem here is that a large sample leads to things being of statistical significance that are not of clinical significance (i.e., a measurable difference that is small enough to not be an actual effect).