In contrast with the competing Reuters coverage, this AP story explained how the study’s methodology differed from that of previous studies, and why the conclusions are likely to be stronger. It also featured comments from experts not involved with study and who are not professionally invested in the practice of acupuncture. Both stories would have done well to include a more careful description of harms. Granted, the meta-analysis in question did not look at harms, but the story could have provided some historical context nonetheless.
The results of many previous studies suggest that acupuncture is as at least as effective, and possibly more effective, than other treatments that are commonly used for chronic pain. However, before it can wholeheartedly endorse a new treatment, the medical community generally wants to know that the approach is also better than a placebo or “sham” therapy. In the case of acupuncture, researchers have had a hard time showing that acupuncture delivered by experts is better than needle pokes delivered at random in a similar setting. Therefore, clinicians who treat pain have been reluctant to embrace what many see as an expensive placebo – i.e., a treatment that works mainly because patients believe in it and want it to work. The new study covered here is important because it suggests, with reasonably rigorous data to back it up, that real acupuncture might have a slight advantage over sham acupuncture when it comes to treating pain. For some clinicians, the results may offer sufficient evidence to recommend acupuncture more enthusiastically.
The story notes that sessions cost $60 to $100 and are covered by some private insurance, but not Medicare.
The benefits are clearly explained by the story: “The patients’ average baseline pain measured 60; it dropped to 30 on average in those who got acupuncture, 35 in those who got fake acupuncture, and 43 in the usual treatment group.” It would have been helpful to include some comparison here. For example, how well do NSAID’s work for these conditions?
The story says acupuncture is “relatively safe,” but doesn’t specify that safety can be improved by selecting licensed practitioners. It also does not mention that acupuncture is associated with rare reports of serious adverse events, most of which seem to occur with unqualified practitioners.
Compared with the competing Reuters piece, the story gives a much better sense that this is just one of many studies that have looked at the usefulness of acupuncture in recent years. And it specifies aspects of the study that may make the conclusions more reliable than previous studies — particularly the inclusion of individual patient data. It also includes a comment from a more mainstream “Western” physician who points out that the results observed in acupuncture studies may not represent the “real world” experience of average acupuncture patients (although this is a deficiency seen in studies of many types of treatments — including more mainstream ones).
The story quotes an acupuncture “skeptic” and the author of an accompanying editorial. It mentions that the study was mainly funded by the federal government, with some additional funding from a non-profit with an interest in alternative medicine.
The story briefly mentions that standard treatments for chronic pain include medications and physical therapy. Close call, but good enough. We would have appreciated a comment about the relative value of these “mainstream” treatments.
The story notes that acupuncture is becoming more mainstream and might be covered in some states under the new health care law. However, a dearth of licensed acupuncturists might restrict availability in some areas, especially rural locations. The story could have mentioned this. But we’ll give it the benefit of the doubt for its general discussion of availability.
The story gives appropriate background on acupuncture research and how the new study differs from previous approaches.
There was enough original reporting that we can sure the story didn’t rely on a press release.
Systematic, Criteria-Driven
A week like this should teach you how/what to ignore: #COVID19 news & PR about studies in monkeys & mice...about studies of dishonesty & BMI…and about rating attractiveness of women with endometriosis!!! https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/crazy-week-of-pr-news-on-studies-should-teach-us-how-what-to-ignore/
“to project certainty where it simply does not exist is communication malpractice at a time like this and with a public health issue like this.” @garyschwitzer on @ContentScience https://review.content-science.com/covering-covid-19-vaccine-news-part-two-from-the-publisher-of-health-news-review/
In case you weren't aware: Prestigious journalism organizations and outlets take money from pharma, @garyschwitzer https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/08/drug-company-influence-on-journalism/#.XyrYGZeNvXA.twitter @HealthNewsRevu
Comments
Please note, comments are no longer published through this website. All previously made comments are still archived and available for viewing through select posts.
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