As I researched, I ran into several studies involving discussions about acupuncture's effectiveness being nothing more than a placebo effect. Many studies use what is called "sham acupuncture" in determining the effectiveness of acupuncture treatments. Sham acupuncture is done in a variety of ways, but typically it is the use of an acupuncture needle placed in incorrect or non-acupuncture points. Marcus (2010) conducted a survey of various studies in acupuncture pain reduction for osteoarthritis and back pain. Each was conducted by comparing traditional treatments with the use of sham acupuncture to act as a placebo. In the ten studies, only two reported strong evidence that traditional acupuncture was more effective than sham acupuncture; the interesting finding, however, was in almost all the studies, sham acupuncture was still better than no treatment.
This opens an interesting debate. After these findings, there is some support that claims that all acupuncture is merely a placebo effect. Colquhoun and Novella (2013) do not take long to state their stance in their article titled "Acupuncture is a Theatrical Placebo." They proclaim that if sham acupuncture is just as effective as traditional acupuncture, then it must be a placebo effect. Lundeberg, Lund, Naslund, and Thomas (2008) claim that sham acupuncture is not inert and therefore cannot be considered a placebo. Because most sham acupuncture still involves some sort of needle insertion, they claim that it still has a physiological, and psychological effect. Follow up studies confirmed this (Moffet, 2009) and made special mention that needles placed in non-points seemed to have the greatest effect (rating the same as traditional acupuncture in13 out of 22 studies). Instead of pointing at a placebo effect, this would call into question the current theoretical basis for acupuncture practices, as traditional acupuncture points were as effective as non-points in a majority of studies.
Personally, I'm not sure what side to take. From my small amount of research on dry needlers, I remember that their version of acupuncture tended to be effective even though they had little training and didn't always use traditional acupuncture points. I would also think there's some possibility that some of the practitioners in these studies didn't hit the correct acupuncture points in the treatment (or hit actual points in the sham condition). I remember feeling somewhat skeptical when Paula had told me that she just had to "feel" for the points and they could be in slightly different locations in different people. But I also have to take my own experience into account. I went in with an open mind, but a healthy amount of doubt as well and I felt some real effects from the treatment. It makes me wonder if I fell victim to a placebo effect or if it would have had the same effect no matter where the needles had been placed.
Works Cited
Colquhoun, D., & Novella, S. (2013). Acupuncture Is Theatrical Placebo. Anesthesia & Analgesia, 116(6), 1360-3.
Lundeberg, T., Lund, I., Näslund, J., & Thomas, M. (2008). The Emperors sham - wrong assumption that sham needling is sham. Acupunct Med, 26(4), 239-42.
Marcus, D. (2010, November). Is Acupuncture for Pain a Placebo Treatment? The Rheumatologist. Retrieved April 4, 2015, from http://www.the-rheumatologist.org/details/article/873613/Is_Acupuncture_for_Pain_a_Placebo_Treatment.html
Moffet, H. H. (2009, March). Sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture: a systematic review of clinical trials. J Altern Complement Med, 15(3), 213-6. doi:10.1089/acm.2008.0356
No comments:
Post a Comment