Does the Choice of Placebo Determine the Results of Clinical Studies on Acupuncture?

Q Medicine
Sánchez Aranjo M
{"title":"Does the Choice of Placebo Determine the Results of Clinical Studies on Acupuncture?","authors":"Sánchez Aranjo M","doi":"10.1159/000057100","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>OBJECTIVE: To establish whether the choice of the placebo treatment used may influence the outcomes of clinical trials on acupuncture or not. DESIGN: A meta-analysis of outcomes according to the choice of the placebo. Attention was focused on the placebo design of 117 clinical, controlled trials found after an extensive search. Studies comparing acupuncture to no treatment or a reference treatment were discarded from the analysis. A set of 90 publications could be classified into one of two groups: i) Clinical studies with sham acupuncture as placebo, which consists of needling outside the meridian, but near to classical acupoints. This group of 45 trials was classified as energetic placebo model (EPM). ii) 45 studies using a placebo treatment consisting of needling within a segmental zone far enough away from the active points were classified as neurophysiological or metameric placebo model (MPM). In both groups of studies the proportions of significant results and the distribution of outcomes characterized by nonsignificant results with improvements greater than 35% in both groups of patients were assessed by the chi-square test. RESULTS: The proportion of meaningful results was significantly higher in the MPM group [73.33% (33/45)], while only 33.33% (15/45) of such results were found in the EPM group (p < 0.03). In the EPM group 24/30 studies showed nonsignificant results with improvements greater than 35% in both groups of patients, while in the MPM group only 20% (6/30) of studies with this outcome could be observed (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Studies using EPM as placebo failed more frequently to show any differences between real acupuncture and placebo treatment than those using MPM as placebo. On the other hand, sham acupuncture appears almost as active as 'real' acupuncture. These results suggest that the design and the way of performing the placebo procedure determine the outcome, i. e. success or failure of a clinical trial in obtaining differences among the patients groups, in case they actually exist.</p>","PeriodicalId":54318,"journal":{"name":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","volume":"5 Suppl S1 ","pages":"8-11"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1998-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000057100","citationCount":"33","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Forschende Komplementarmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000057100","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 33

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To establish whether the choice of the placebo treatment used may influence the outcomes of clinical trials on acupuncture or not. DESIGN: A meta-analysis of outcomes according to the choice of the placebo. Attention was focused on the placebo design of 117 clinical, controlled trials found after an extensive search. Studies comparing acupuncture to no treatment or a reference treatment were discarded from the analysis. A set of 90 publications could be classified into one of two groups: i) Clinical studies with sham acupuncture as placebo, which consists of needling outside the meridian, but near to classical acupoints. This group of 45 trials was classified as energetic placebo model (EPM). ii) 45 studies using a placebo treatment consisting of needling within a segmental zone far enough away from the active points were classified as neurophysiological or metameric placebo model (MPM). In both groups of studies the proportions of significant results and the distribution of outcomes characterized by nonsignificant results with improvements greater than 35% in both groups of patients were assessed by the chi-square test. RESULTS: The proportion of meaningful results was significantly higher in the MPM group [73.33% (33/45)], while only 33.33% (15/45) of such results were found in the EPM group (p < 0.03). In the EPM group 24/30 studies showed nonsignificant results with improvements greater than 35% in both groups of patients, while in the MPM group only 20% (6/30) of studies with this outcome could be observed (p < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Studies using EPM as placebo failed more frequently to show any differences between real acupuncture and placebo treatment than those using MPM as placebo. On the other hand, sham acupuncture appears almost as active as 'real' acupuncture. These results suggest that the design and the way of performing the placebo procedure determine the outcome, i. e. success or failure of a clinical trial in obtaining differences among the patients groups, in case they actually exist.

安慰剂的选择是否决定了针灸临床研究的结果?
目的:确定安慰剂治疗的选择是否会影响针灸临床试验的结果。设计:根据安慰剂选择对结果进行荟萃分析。人们的注意力集中在经过广泛搜索后发现的117个临床对照试验的安慰剂设计上。比较针灸与无治疗或参考治疗的研究从分析中被丢弃。一组90篇出版物可分为两组:i)以假针灸作为安慰剂的临床研究,即在经络外针刺,但靠近经典穴位。这组45个试验被归类为能量安慰剂模型(EPM)。ii) 45项使用安慰剂治疗的研究,包括在距离活动点足够远的节段区域内针刺,被归类为神经生理或超计量安慰剂模型(MPM)。在两组研究中,通过卡方检验评估两组患者中显著结果的比例和改善大于35%的无显著结果的结果分布。结果:MPM组有意义的结果比例显著高于EPM组[73.33% (33/45)],EPM组有意义的结果比例仅为33.33%(15/45),差异有统计学意义(p < 0.03)。在EPM组中,24/30项研究显示两组患者的改善均大于35%,无显著性结果,而在MPM组中,只有20%(6/30)的研究可观察到这一结果(p < 0.05)。结论:使用EPM作为安慰剂的研究比使用MPM作为安慰剂的研究更频繁地显示出真正的针灸和安慰剂治疗之间的任何差异。另一方面,假针灸看起来几乎和“真”针灸一样有效。这些结果表明,设计和执行安慰剂程序的方式决定了结果,即临床试验的成功或失败,以获得患者群体之间的差异,如果他们确实存在的话。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信