Acupuncture Research Merry-Go-Round
No sooner does a research study confirm that acupuncture is better than pills for chronic headaches, than another shows up proclaiming that acupuncture has no effect on headaches. This reminds me of the early days when the press began widely covering drug and supplement trials. “Research confirms product X is good for you!” “Research denies the Product X does anything!” “Research reconfirms that Product X is effective!” It’s enough to make your head spin.
In this case, the problem is partly the way this most recent study was carried out, and partly the way many journalists have a better eye for controversy than balanced, factual reporting. First, let’s look at a recent article about the acupuncture-doesn’t-work study, this one from the UK’s Daily Mail:
Unfortunately, when I examined the research, it became clear that sticking needles in patients is not as effective as many clinics claim. Indeed, research published last week reinforced the notion that the philosophy of Chinese acupuncture is mumbo-jumbo of the highest quality.
The most recent research was based on looking at several clinical trials in which acupuncturists treated patients with headaches.
According to Chinese philosophy, such complaints are due to imbalances in the flow of Ch’i (a supposed life energy) within meridians (channels that supposedly run through our bodies). Inserting needles at the right points along the meridians is meant to affect the Ch’i and cure the patient.
The recent research reviewed two types of acupuncture, namely real and fake. This means that one set of patients had needles inserted at key points along the meridians, while another set of patients had the needles inserted more or less anywhere.
Click here to read the rest of this article.
The writer goes on to describe a bit more about the study and how it “proved” that Chinese Medicine doesn’t work.
Interesting article, but it has the usual problems with press coverage of scientific trials. First, this was one small meta-study of a selected group of 14 studies, for one symptom. Other trials, just as rigorous (if not more), have shown benefit for headaches for correctly administered acupuncture. Dozens of them. None of these confirm or deny the overall efficacy of acupuncture. Like most studies, they examine one narrow topic.
Also, there are no “headache” points in acupuncture. Headaches fall into many categories, and are all treated differently. Acupuncturists don’t work on patients with a protocol in mind, but treat the patient individually, putting the symptom in the context of the person before choosing points. Did the researchers take that into account when choosing points? They almost never do.
Finally, I’ve noticed from reading about this study that there is little information about where the so-called non-acupuncture points were located. There are hundreds of acupuncture points on the body – how do they know they didn’t inadvertently use points or puncture channels that helped?
More important, the authors of the study aren’t so conclusive as the press likes to be. They summarized their findings as:
Fourteen trials compared true acupuncture with inadequate or fake acupuncture interventions in which needles were either inserted at incorrect points or did not penetrate the skin. In these trials both groups had fewer headaches than before treatment, but there was no difference between the effects of the two treatments. In the four trials in which acupuncture was compared to a proven prophylactic drug treatment, patients receiving acupuncture tended to report more improvement and fewer side effects. Collectively, the studies suggest that migraine patients benefit from acupuncture, although the correct placement of needles seems to be less relevant than is usually thought by acupuncturists.
There are too many problems with studies like these, when they treat acupuncture out of the context of the entire Chinese medical system. What they are really testing is a long way from what acupuncturists do in our clinics every day. Until researchers stop testing acupuncture as if it’s a drug, it’s best to take most Western research into acupuncture, both pro and con, with a grain of salt. It’s a fairly new field of study in the West, and it’s coming along, but it still has a long way to go.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Hi Norm, Great blog! This research upset me greatly. I guess it touched a nerve. I couldn’t find a way to disprove the studies findings. Not just sham points but also the lack of insertion patients reported similar results. This type of study gets lots of traction in the scientific community. I want evidence to refute this conclusion. Any suggestions?
Justin
One issue that came up when we would discuss research like this in school was the huge impact of intent. If the practitioner intends to help the patient even without the correct points you might get some positive effect. Similarly if you have a practitioner who doesn’t care, even the perfect treatment may have minimal help.
Additionally headaches have so many causes and so many are keyed to the lifestyles we lead (poor food, food that doesn’t agree with us, stress, lack of rest, lack of fluids, poor breathing…) that acupuncture can’t really overcome ALL the negatives that people are doing to their bodies.
Acupuncture works on a level we can’t really measure at this point and until we can do that, it will elude the “scientific method”. Perhaps physicists should study acupuncture rather than biologists–after all physicists understand the nature of energy/matter far better than the average research biologist or bio-chemist!