 |
|
COMMENTS AND OPINIONS
Acupuncture Research: Placebos by Many Other Names—Reply
Daniel C. Cherkin, PhD;
Karen J. Sherman, PhD, MPH
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In reply
Our trial was designed to determine if adjunctive acupuncture needling was more effective than usual care alone for chronic back pain and if acupuncture involving needle insertion was more effective than simulated (noninsertive) acupuncture in clinically relevant acupuncture points.1 We found that insertive and noninsertive acupuncture had similar effects that were superior to usual care alone. We concluded that "it remains unclear whether acupuncture or our simulated method of acupuncture provide physiologically important stimulation or represent placebo or nonspecific effects."1(p858)
The 2 letters reflect starkly different views. Costi and colleagues argue that our results were not surprising because our noninsertive needling treatment "preserved the painful and mechanical stimuli" of a bona fide acupuncture treatment. In contrast, Bausell and O’Connell suggest that any benefits of acupuncture (whether real, simulated, or sham) are placebo effects. Both may be right—or wrong. Because . . . [Full Text of this Article]
AUTHOR INFORMATION
 CiteULike  Connotea  Del.icio.us  Digg  Reddit  Technorati  Twitter
What's this?
RELATED ARTICLE
A Randomized Trial Comparing Acupuncture, Simulated Acupuncture, and Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain
Daniel C. Cherkin, Karen J. Sherman, Andrew L. Avins, Janet H. Erro, Laura Ichikawa, William E. Barlow, Kristin Delaney, Rene Hawkes, Luisa Hamilton, Alice Pressman, Partap S. Khalsa, and Richard A. Deyo
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):858-866.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
RELATED LETTER
Acupuncture Research: Placebos by Many Other Names
Barker Bausell and Neil Edward O’Connell
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1812-1813.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
|
