| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Acupuncture on the NHS | |
| Posted by: | Stephen Pett | |
| Date/Time: | 21/10/15 10:37:00 |
| Larry I have a mind that this is open so I looked at the WHO and accupuncture. I assume you're referring to the report from the meeting almost 20 odd years ago. I got as far as reading "In many published placebo-controlled trials, sham acupuncture was carried out by needling at incorrect, theoretically irrelevant sites. Such a control really only offers information about the most effective sites of needling, not about the specific effects of acupuncture (13). Positive results from such trials, which revealed that genuine acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture with statistical significance, provide evidence showing the effectiveness of acupuncture treatment. On the other hand, negative results from such trials, in which both the genuine and sham acupuncture showed considerable therapeutic effects with no significant difference between them, can hardly be taken as evidence negating the effectiveness of acupuncture. In the latter case, especially in treatment of pain, most authors could only draw the conclusion that additional control studies were needed. Therefore, these reports are generally not included in this review" With such obvious bias I read no further. Dear old NHS says this http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Acupuncture/Pages/Evidence.aspx The Cochrane stuff is always compelling. Stephen P.S. Fortunately I have a good memory and I remember Amitripyline for depression. However I haven't seen it used at all for 25 years. And I remember when I last saw Chlorpromazine used -1996. It probably still is used occasionally. P.P.S Antidepressants being better that placebo is a rather different but interesting conversation. |