Acupuncture
- Thread starter mitch
- Start date
KeepTheHair
Established Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Hairometer
Member
- Reaction score
- 0
Me & my friend both tried acupuncture for hair regrowth purpose from this Mainland Chinese doctor. The practitioner 'poked' various spots on our scalps & near the spine area in the back. Certain needles were connected to a current generator as well. After each session (of about 40~45 min), our hair stood up like a porcupine, but density never increased. Thus we both quit after a few months cos' I want density, not just stiffened hair alone.
It is a trend with most alternative medicine, that the stricter and more rigorous the trials become; the less effective the treatments seem to be... This is wrongly deemed the "scientific bias"- indicating that the scientific method in itself somehow is biased against alternative treatment.
If you test homeopathy vs. a no- treatment control group, the test result will show a statistic improvement in the treatment group. Thus we can conclude that homeopathy works: homeopathic treatments works better than no treatment at all.
BUT: if we test a homeopathic remedy vs A PLACEBO (and do so correctly, by double blinding the research team), we find that the homeopathic remedy doesn't work any better than the placebo. Thus a BETTER, more STRICT test shows that HOMEOPATHY DOESN'T work.
The thing about acupuncture is: how in the world are you going to test it vs. a placebo?
Treatment vs. control shows that acupuncture works. But that is a flawed study design; we need to test vs. a placebo...
So- one brilliant researcher develops a SHAM NEEDLE- a needle that does not pierce the skin, and is wrongly placed according to the medians. So the placebo in this case is wrongly, randomly placed needles. What is the result?
from pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20578644
Efficacy of acupunture in patients with chronic neck pain--a randomised, sham controlled trial.
Sahin N, Ozcan E, Sezen K, Karatas O, Issever H.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Meran Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey. nilaysahin@gmail.com
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of electroacupuncture and sham acupuncture in the treatment of patients with chronic neck pain. 31 patients with chronic neck pain were included in a randomised, controlled trial. Electric stimulation was given for 30 minutes at low frequency (1-4Hz), pulse width of 200 micros, interrupted wave form. Of the 29 patients who completed the therapy, 13 were assigned to conventional acupuncture and 16 to sham acupuncture groups, receiving 3 sessions a week for a total of 10 sessions, each lasting for 30 minutes. Patients were evaluated before and after therapy and 3 months later by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the bodily pain subscale of the Short Form Health Survey-36 scale. The treating physician was different from the evaluating physician who, like the patient, was blinded. VAS scores in both groups significantly reduced after therapy and at 3 months post-therapy, but the difference between groups was not significant. In respect of bodily pain, there was a significant improvement in the acupuncture group after therapy (P<0.01). Stimulation of conventional acupuncture points was not generally superior to needling of nonspecific points on the neck, and both treatments were associated with improvement of symptoms. Needles inserted into the neck are likely to be an inappropriate sham control for acupuncture.
tl;dr : acupuncture works NO BETTER THAN PLACEBO.
Note also that BOTH PLACEBO AND ACUPUNTURE WORKS, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN ACUPUNCTURE WORKS, IT JUST DEMONSTRATES THE POWER OF PLACEBO.
If you test homeopathy vs. a no- treatment control group, the test result will show a statistic improvement in the treatment group. Thus we can conclude that homeopathy works: homeopathic treatments works better than no treatment at all.
BUT: if we test a homeopathic remedy vs A PLACEBO (and do so correctly, by double blinding the research team), we find that the homeopathic remedy doesn't work any better than the placebo. Thus a BETTER, more STRICT test shows that HOMEOPATHY DOESN'T work.
The thing about acupuncture is: how in the world are you going to test it vs. a placebo?
Treatment vs. control shows that acupuncture works. But that is a flawed study design; we need to test vs. a placebo...
So- one brilliant researcher develops a SHAM NEEDLE- a needle that does not pierce the skin, and is wrongly placed according to the medians. So the placebo in this case is wrongly, randomly placed needles. What is the result?
from pubmed http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20578644
Efficacy of acupunture in patients with chronic neck pain--a randomised, sham controlled trial.
Sahin N, Ozcan E, Sezen K, Karatas O, Issever H.
Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Meran Faculty of Medicine, Selcuk University, Konya, Turkey. nilaysahin@gmail.com
Abstract
The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of electroacupuncture and sham acupuncture in the treatment of patients with chronic neck pain. 31 patients with chronic neck pain were included in a randomised, controlled trial. Electric stimulation was given for 30 minutes at low frequency (1-4Hz), pulse width of 200 micros, interrupted wave form. Of the 29 patients who completed the therapy, 13 were assigned to conventional acupuncture and 16 to sham acupuncture groups, receiving 3 sessions a week for a total of 10 sessions, each lasting for 30 minutes. Patients were evaluated before and after therapy and 3 months later by Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) and the bodily pain subscale of the Short Form Health Survey-36 scale. The treating physician was different from the evaluating physician who, like the patient, was blinded. VAS scores in both groups significantly reduced after therapy and at 3 months post-therapy, but the difference between groups was not significant. In respect of bodily pain, there was a significant improvement in the acupuncture group after therapy (P<0.01). Stimulation of conventional acupuncture points was not generally superior to needling of nonspecific points on the neck, and both treatments were associated with improvement of symptoms. Needles inserted into the neck are likely to be an inappropriate sham control for acupuncture.
tl;dr : acupuncture works NO BETTER THAN PLACEBO.
Note also that BOTH PLACEBO AND ACUPUNTURE WORKS, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN ACUPUNCTURE WORKS, IT JUST DEMONSTRATES THE POWER OF PLACEBO.
Another study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15611488
Acupuncture versus placebo for the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized, controlled trial.
White P, Lewith G, Prescott P, Conway J.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial increases in its popularity and use, the efficacy of acupuncture for chronic mechanical neck pain remains unproved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare acupuncture and placebo for neck pain.
DESIGN: A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trial with 1-year follow-up.
SETTING: The outpatient departments of 2 major hospitals in the United Kingdom, 1999 to 2001.
PATIENTS: 135 patients 18 to 80 years of age who had chronic mechanical neck pain. Eleven patients withdrew from treatment, and 124 completed the primary end point.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was pain 1 week after treatment, according to a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes were pain at other time points, score on the Neck Disability Index and the Short Form-36, and use of analgesic medications.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive, over 4 weeks, 8 treatments with acupuncture or with mock transcutaneous electrical stimulation of acupuncture points using a decommissioned electroacupuncture stimulation unit.
RESULTS: Both groups improved statistically from baseline, and acupuncture and placebo had similar credibility. For the primary outcome (weeks 1 to 5), a statistically significant difference in visual analogue scale score in favor of acupuncture (6.3 mm [95% CI, 1.4 to 11.3 mm]; P = 0.01) was observed between the 2 study groups, after adjustment for baseline pain and other covariates. However, this difference was not clinically significant because it demonstrated only a 12% (CI, 3% to 21%) difference between acupuncture and placebo. Secondary outcomes showed a similar pattern.
LIMITATIONS: All treatments were provided by 1 practitioner. Although the control was credible, it did not mimic the process of needling. A nonintervention group was not present to control for regression to the mean.
CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture reduced neck pain and produced a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect compared with placebo. The beneficial effects of acupuncture for pain may be due to both nonspecific and specific effects.
Acupuncture versus placebo for the treatment of chronic mechanical neck pain: a randomized, controlled trial.
White P, Lewith G, Prescott P, Conway J.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite substantial increases in its popularity and use, the efficacy of acupuncture for chronic mechanical neck pain remains unproved.
OBJECTIVE: To compare acupuncture and placebo for neck pain.
DESIGN: A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-arm trial with 1-year follow-up.
SETTING: The outpatient departments of 2 major hospitals in the United Kingdom, 1999 to 2001.
PATIENTS: 135 patients 18 to 80 years of age who had chronic mechanical neck pain. Eleven patients withdrew from treatment, and 124 completed the primary end point.
MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was pain 1 week after treatment, according to a visual analogue scale. Secondary outcomes were pain at other time points, score on the Neck Disability Index and the Short Form-36, and use of analgesic medications.
INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive, over 4 weeks, 8 treatments with acupuncture or with mock transcutaneous electrical stimulation of acupuncture points using a decommissioned electroacupuncture stimulation unit.
RESULTS: Both groups improved statistically from baseline, and acupuncture and placebo had similar credibility. For the primary outcome (weeks 1 to 5), a statistically significant difference in visual analogue scale score in favor of acupuncture (6.3 mm [95% CI, 1.4 to 11.3 mm]; P = 0.01) was observed between the 2 study groups, after adjustment for baseline pain and other covariates. However, this difference was not clinically significant because it demonstrated only a 12% (CI, 3% to 21%) difference between acupuncture and placebo. Secondary outcomes showed a similar pattern.
LIMITATIONS: All treatments were provided by 1 practitioner. Although the control was credible, it did not mimic the process of needling. A nonintervention group was not present to control for regression to the mean.
CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture reduced neck pain and produced a statistically, but not clinically, significant effect compared with placebo. The beneficial effects of acupuncture for pain may be due to both nonspecific and specific effects.