This HealthDay story explains the findings from what it describes as the “the world’s largest randomized, controlled trial of acupuncture in the emergency department.” More than 500 patients were seen in four major hospital emergency departments for acute lower back pain, migraine headaches or ankle sprains. For pain control, they received either conventional painkiller drugs, acupuncture or a combination of the two.
The story states that the acupuncture was proven as safe and effective as other treatments. Yet, as the study abstract states, “none of the examined therapies provided optimal acute analgesia.” That point didn’t make it into this story, which relied heavily on the news release.
For another in-depth take on this story and the news coverage, see “A skeptical look at a study of acupuncture delivered in emergency rooms.”
Given the growing trend in overdosing and dependency with the use of opiate painkilling medications, any effective alternative will be a welcome addition to public health care. Some patients cannot use some conventional analgesic medications and having an alternative therapy when needed would certainly be an improvement. But the story fails to give readers any insight into whether they might expect acupuncture as a possible alternate therapy when they visit the hospital’s emergency department.
There was no mention of the cost of acupuncture treatments in the story, nor was there any comparison between such costs and the costs for standard analgesic drugs that might be administered in an emergency department.
A provider trained in acupuncture would need to be available at the time the patient needed assistance. If acupuncture increased time in the ED, that would add cost and reduce capacity for other patients. These are important considerations (as cost drivers) in a fast-paced environment.
The story does a good job quantifying the measured benefits of the study, giving readers a lot of information on what the researchers measured, especially when it describes how many points the pain dropped on the pain scale.
However, the story makes the claim that “acupuncture is a safe and effective alternative to pain medications for some emergency room patients, a new study reports.” None of the data presented in the story proves it is a safe and effective alternative.
Instead, the data just shows that none of the pain interventions worked very well. As the story describes, “one hour after treatment, less than 40 percent of all patients had significant pain reduction, meaning at least a 2-point decline on the 10-point scale.”
And as the study abstract states, “none of the examined therapies provided optimal acute analgesia.” That point didn’t make it into this story.
There is no mention in the story of possible harms from the use of acupuncture. While the risks may be slight in most cases, they are not negligible. Infection is always possible and some can be serious. Also if a patient is not given an actual pain reliever and has to revisit the ER later, that is a harm.
The story identifies this research as a multi-center, randomized clinical trial comparing three alternative therapeutic approaches. It also states that this was “billed as the world’s largest randomized, controlled trial of acupuncture in the emergency department” and included a patient population of more than 500 people.
Still, we would have appreciated more information on what they meant by “satisfied” in the follow-up visit. Did they say the pain was much better? Or gone? Wouldn’t a majority of the patients in a typical ER with one of these three problems (acute back pain, migraine, or ankle sprain) have their pain “satisfied” (mostly gone) no matter what you gave them, since those issues are all self-limited? These and other limitations needed more discussion in the story.
The story does not appear to be disease-mongering.
This story offers quoted statements only from the lead investigator for the trial. No independent sources or quoted, nor are we told who funded the study.
The story explains that the study compared the result of using acupuncture versus the use of painkillers versus the use of both in tandem, so it is clear that there are alternatives available for analgesia.
However, the three conditions–acute low back pain, migraines or ankle sprains–are all treated differently and have a host of known appropriate strategies. For example, rest for back pain, triptan medications for migraine, ice and elevation for sprain. We think this deserved a mention in the story.
While acupuncture is becoming more widely available in most communities, there is no information in the story that suggests how available it might be in large hospital emergency departments. Also, would it be available in a timely manner?
It would be pretty novel if the study had shown that acupuncture was more effective than conventional analgesic drugs in controlling pain, but that’s not what this study showed. While both the study and the story did seem to indicate that acupuncture was as effective as either painkillers or painkillers and acupuncture, the abstract of the study also said “none of the examined therapies provided optimal acute analgesia.” Controlling pain was arguably the reason the study’s patients went to the emergency departments. The study basically said acupuncture was as good as painkillers for pain control but that for these patients, neither was successful. We think that should have been explained in the story to help establish the novelty of this research.
The two quoted statements in this story are identical to those in the university’s news release. The story appears to rely heavily on that news release.
For example, this quote appears in both the news story and the news release:
“While acupuncture is widely used by practitioners in community settings for treating pain, it is rarely used in hospital emergency departments,” said study lead investigator Marc Cohen. He is a professor in the School of Health and Biomedical Sciences at RMIT University in Melbourne, Australia.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
Do you write news releases?
And want help?
We offer free pre-publication review of releases. SEE MORE →
We will not display your name or e-mail address on the site, nor will we share your e-mail address with any third parties.
Thank you for joining the HealthNewsReview.org mailing list. It’s a good way for you to stay up-to-date on what we’ve published, even if you forget to come to our website every day or every week.
-Gary Schwitzer, Publisher, HealthNewsReview.org
By submitting this form, you are granting: HealthNewsReview.org, University of Minnesota , Minneapolis, MN, 55455, United States, https://www.healthnewsreview.org permission to email you. You may unsubscribe via the link found at the bottom of every email. Emails are serviced by Mailchimp. (See their Email Privacy Policy for details.)
NY Times hails MitraClip a ‘huge advance’ for heart failure, but independent sources might have said otherwise https://t.co/cdD1hAtARd
NY Times hails MitraClip a ‘huge advance’ for heart failure, but independent sources might have said otherwise https://t.co/cdD1hAtARd
Comments
We Welcome Comments. But please note: We will delete comments left by anyone who doesn’t leave an actual first and last name and an actual email address.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified facts, product pitches, or profanity. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. Comments should primarily discuss the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages about health and medicine. This is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science. Nor is it a forum to share your personal story about a disease or treatment -- your comment must relate to media messages about health care. If your comment doesn't adhere to these policies, we won't post it. Questions? Please see more on our comments policy.
Our Comments Policy
But before leaving a comment, please review these notes about our policy.
You are responsible for any comments you leave on this site.
This site is primarily a forum for discussion about the quality (or lack thereof) in journalism or other media messages (advertising, marketing, public relations, medical journals, etc.) It is not intended to be a forum for definitive discussions about medicine or science.
We will delete comments that include personal attacks, unfounded allegations, unverified claims, product pitches, profanity or any from anyone who does not list a full name and a functioning email address. We will also end any thread of repetitive comments. We don”t give medical advice so we won”t respond to questions asking for it.
We don”t have sufficient staffing to contact each commenter who left such a message. If you have a question about why your comment was edited or removed, you can email us at feedback@healthnewsreview.org.
There has been a recent burst of attention to troubles with many comments left on science and science news/communication websites. Read “Online science comments: trolls, trash and treasure.”
The authors of the Retraction Watch comments policy urge commenters:
We”re also concerned about anonymous comments. We ask that all commenters leave their full name and provide an actual email address in case we feel we need to contact them. We may delete any comment left by someone who does not leave their name and a legitimate email address.
And, as noted, product pitches of any sort – pushing treatments, tests, products, procedures, physicians, medical centers, books, websites – are likely to be deleted. We don”t accept advertising on this site and are not going to give it away free.
The ability to leave comments expires after a certain period of time. So you may find that you’re unable to leave a comment on an article that is more than a few months old.
You might also like