Interpretive bias in acupuncture research?: A case study

Clinical evidence of acupuncture and moxibustion for irritable bowel syndrome: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

Acupuncture and moxibustion have been widely used in the treatment of Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). But the evidence that acupuncture and moxibustion for IBS reduction of symptom severity and abdominal pain, and improvement of quality of life is scarce.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Chinese Scientific Journals Database (VIP), Wanfang Database, China Biomedical Literature Service System (SinoMed), and unpublished sources were searched from inception until June 30, 2022. The quality of RCTs was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. The strength of the evidence was evaluated with the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation system (GRADE). Trial sequential analysis (TSA) was conducted to determine whether the participants in the included trials had reached optimal information size and whether the cumulative data was adequately powered to evaluate outcomes.

Results

A total of 31 RCTs were included. Acupuncture helped reduce the severity of symptoms more than pharmaceutical drugs (MD, -35.45; 95% CI, -48.21 to -22.68; I ² = 71%). TSA showed the cumulative Z score crossed O'Brien-Fleming alpha-spending significance boundaries. Acupuncture wasn't associated with symptom severity reduction (SMD, 0.03, 95% CI, -0.25 to 0.31, I ² = 46%), but exhibited therapeutic benefits on abdominal pain (SMD, -0.24; 95% CI, -0.48 to -0.01; I ² = 8%) compared to sham acupuncture. Moxibustion show therapeutic benefits compared to sham moxibustion on symptom severity (SMD, -3.46, 95% CI, -5.66 to -1.27, I ² = 95%) and abdominal pain (SMD, -2.74, 95% CI, -4.81 to -0.67, I ² = 96%). Acupuncture (SMD, -0.46; 95% CI, -0.68 to -0.24; I ² = 47%) and the combination of acupuncture and moxibustion (SMD, -2.00; 95% CI, -3.04 to -0.96; I ² = 90%) showed more benefit for abdominal pain compared to pharmacological medications as well as shams. Acupuncture (MD, 4.56; 95% CI, 1.46-7.67; I ² = 79%) and moxibustion (MD, 6.97; 95% CI, 5.78-8.16; I ² = 21%) were more likely to improve quality of life than pharmaceutical drugs.

Conclusion

Acupuncture and/or moxibustion are beneficial for symptom severity, abdominal pain and quality of life in IBS. However, in sham control trials, acupuncture hasn't exhibited robust and stable evidence, and moxibustion's results show great heterogeneity. Hence, more rigorous sham control trials of acupuncture or moxibustion are necessary.

Systematic review registration

https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=262118, identifier CRD42021262118.

Comparison between the Effects of Acupuncture Relative to Other Controls on Irritable Bowel Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional gastrointestinal disorder with recurrent abdominal pain and altered defecation habits. We here attempted to determine the effect of acupuncture on IBS.

Methods

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) published in CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Web of science, and ClinicalTrials.gov till July 17, 2019 were searched. Outcomes were total efficacy rates, overall IBS symptom scores, or global quality of life scores. Standardized mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) and risk ratio (RR) with 95% CI were calculated for meta-analysis.

Results

We included 41 RCTs involving 3440 participants for analysis. 8 RCTs compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, among which 3 trials confirmed the biological effects of acupuncture, especially in treating abdominal pain, discomfort, and stool frequency. No significant difference was found when acupuncture was compared with sham acupuncture, in terms of effects on IBS symptoms and quality of life (SMD = 0.18, 95% CI −0.26∼0.63, P=0.42; SMD = −0.10, 95% CI −0.31∼0.11, P=0.35), but the pooled efficacy rate data showed a better outcome for true acupuncture (RR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.01∼1.47, P=0.04), which was not supported by sensitivity analysis. Acupuncture was more effective relative to western medicine in alleviating IBS symptoms (RR = 1.17, 95% CI 1.12∼1.23, I² = 0%, P < 0.00001), whose effect might last 3 months. Besides, acupuncture as an adjunct to western medicine, Chinese medications, or tuina was superior over the single latter treatment (RR = 1.68, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.40, P=0.004; 1.19, 1.03 to 1.36, P=0.02; 1.36, 1.08 to 1.72, P=0.009, respectively), with high heterogeneities.

Conclusions

Relative to sham controls, acupuncture showed no superiority for treating IBS, while the advantage over western medicine was significant. Acupuncture could be used as an adjunct in clinical settings to improve efficacy. Future high-quality and large-sample-size studies with adequate quantity-effect design need to be conducted.

Acupuncture for hip osteoarthritis

BACKGROUND

Hip osteoarthritis (OA) is a major cause of pain and functional limitation. Few hip OA treatments have been evaluated for safety and effectiveness. Acupuncture is a traditional Chinese medical therapy which aims to treat disease by inserting very thin needles at specific points on the body.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the benefits and harms of acupuncture in patients with hip OA.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE, and Embase all through March 2018.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, another active treatment, or no specific treatment; and RCTs that evaluated acupuncture as an addition to another treatment. Major outcomes were pain and function at the short term (i.e. < 3 months after randomization) and adverse events.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane.

MAIN RESULTS

Six RCTs with 413 participants were included. Four RCTs included only people with OA of the hip, and two included a mix of people with OA of the hip and knee. All RCTs included primarily older participants, with a mean age range from 61 to 67 years, and a mean duration of hip OA pain from two to eight years. Approximately two-thirds of participants were women. Two RCTs compared acupuncture versus sham acupuncture; the other four RCTs were not blinded. All results were evaluated at short term (i.e. four to nine weeks after randomization).In the two RCTs that compared acupuncture to sham acupuncture, the sham acupuncture control interventions were judged believable, but each sham acupuncture intervention was also judged to have a risk of weak acupuncture-specific effects, due to placement of non-penetrating needles at the correct acupuncture points in one RCT, and the use of penetrating needles not inserted at the correct points in the other RCT. For these two sham-controlled RCTs, the risk of bias was low for all outcomes.The combined analysis of two sham-controlled RCTs gave moderate quality evidence of little or no effect in reduction in pain for acupuncture relative to sham acupuncture. Due to the small sample sizes in the studies, the confidence interval includes both the possibility of moderate benefit and the possibility of no effect of acupuncture (120 participants; Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) -0.13, (95% Confidence Interval (CI) -0.49 to 0.22); 2.1 points greater improvement with acupuncture compared to sham acupuncture on 100 point scale (i.e., absolute percent change -2.1% (95% CI -7.9% to 3.6%)); relative percent change -4.1% (95% CI -15.6% to 7.0%)). Estimates of effect were similar for function (120 participants; SMD -0.15, (95% CI -0.51 to 0.21)). No pooled estimate, representative of the two sham-controlled RCTs, could be calculated or reported for the quality of life outcome.The four other RCTs were unblinded comparative effectiveness RCTs, which compared (additional) acupuncture to four different active control treatments.There was low quality evidence that addition of acupuncture to the routine primary care that RCT participants were receiving from their physicians was associated with statistically significant and clinically relevant benefits, compared to the routine primary physician care alone, in pain (1 RCT; 137 participants; mean percent difference -22.9% (95% CI -29.2% to -16.6%); relative percent difference -46.5% (95% CI -59.3% to -33.7%)) and function (mean percent difference -19.0% (95% CI -24.41 to -13.59); relative percent difference -38.6% (95% CI -49.6% to -27.6%)). There was no statistically significant difference for mental quality of life and acupuncture showed a small, significant benefit for physical quality of life.The effects of acupuncture compared with either advice plus exercise or NSAIDs are uncertain.We are also uncertain whether acupuncture plus patient education improves pain, function, and quality of life, when compared to patient education alone.In general, the overall quality of the evidence for the four comparative effectiveness RCTs was low to very low, mainly due to the potential for biased reporting of patient-assessed outcomes due to lack of blinding and sparse data.Information on safety was reported in four RCTs. Two RCTs reported minor side effects of acupuncture, which were primarily minor bruising, bleeding, or pain at needle insertion sites. Four RCTs reported on adverse events, and none reported any serious adverse events attributed to acupuncture.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Acupuncture probably has little or no effect in reducing pain or improving function relative to sham acupuncture in people with hip osteoarthritis. Due to the small sample size in the studies, the confidence intervals include both the possibility of moderate benefits and the possibility of no effect of acupuncture. One unblinded trial found that acupuncture as an addition to routine primary physician care was associated with benefits on pain and function. However, these reported benefits are likely due at least partially to RCT participants' greater expectations of benefit from acupuncture. Possible side effects associated with acupuncture treatment were minor.

Low Back Pain: What Have Clinical Guidelines Ever Done for Us?

The burden that low back pain (LBP) presents to sufferers and society is well established. This ubiquitous condition is served by a complex global clinical marketplace offering a wide range of assessment alternatives and accompanying interventions. Yet, while the costs of care are rising, the global burden does not appear to be diminishing. Considerable effort internationally has gone into developing CPGs for LBP. The authors highlight the similarities and differences between existing CPGs for LBP, as well as strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for improvement in the implementation of guidelines generally. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(2):54-57. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.0602.

Effect of acupuncture and instruction on physiological recovery from maximal exercise: a balanced-placebo controlled trial

Background

This study aimed to investigate the effect of acupuncture administered immediately following a graded exercise test (GXT) on physiological measures of recovery and determine if instruction (expectancy) affected the responses.

Methods

A balanced-placebo 2 × 2 factorial design was used with treatment (real vs placebo acupuncture) and instruction (told real vs told placebo acupuncture) as factors; a no-treatment control group was also included to compare the treatment responses to no treatment. Recreationally active, acupuncture naïve young adults (n = 60) performed a GXT to exhaustion on a cycle ergometer (15 W/min). Heart rate, blood pressure, oxygen consumption, respiratory rate and blood lactate were collected during the test and during 60 min of supine recovery on a plinth. An experienced acupuncturist delivered real or placebo acupuncture within 6 min of completing the GXT (total treatment time = 20 min). Real acupuncture points included Neiguan (PC6), Zusanli (ST36), Lieque (LU7), and Tanzhang (REN17), while placebo acupuncture was delivered using the Park sham needle placed 1–2 cm away from each real acupuncture point. The control group received no intervention.

Results

Linear and quadratic trend analyses over time indicated no significant differences between groups on any dependent variable. However, analysis of specific timepoints (every 10 min of the 60 min recovery) revealed that participants who received some form of treatment had a lower heart rate than participants in the no treatment control group (p = 0.042) at 20 min post-exercise. Further, a significant treatment by instruction interaction effect for heart rate was also found at 50 min (p = 0.042) and 60 min (p = 0.013) post-exercise, indicating that the differences between real and placebo acupuncture were affected by expectancy manipulation. No other significant effects were noted. However, it was interesting to note that participants who believed they were given real acupuncture reported quicker perceived recovery independent of actual treatment (p = 0.006) suggesting that instruction about treatment influenced perceived recovery.

Conclusion

In summary, due to limited evidence, the current study does not support the acute use of acupuncture for exercise recovery. However, importantly, the current study demonstrates that a balanced-placebo design is viable for testing acupuncture and expectancy effects, and this methodology could therefore be implemented in future studies.

Trial registration

ACTRN12612001015831 (Date registered: 20/09/2012).

Acupuncture versus Usual Care for Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Children after Tonsillectomy/Adenoidectomy: A Pragmatic, Multicentre, Double-Blinded, Randomised Trial

Objectives

To investigate the effect of a standardised acupuncture on nausea and vomiting in children after tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy when possible placebo effects were precluded.

Methods

A pragmatic, multicentre, double-blinded, randomised controlled trial. The study was conducted over 10 months in 2012–2013 at three ambulatory clinics. Two hundred and eighty-two children, age 1–11 years, American Society of Anesthesiologists grade ≤II, were included. To equalise expectancy effects, all parents were told that their child would receive acupuncture. However, children were randomly allocated to perioperative bilateral needling acupuncture at PC6, depth 7 mm, mean time 17 min (SD 5–45) during anaesthesia plus usual care, or to usual care only. The regional ethics committee approved this approach. Primary endpoints were nausea and vomiting 24 h postoperatively.

Results

This study did not demonstrate any effect of acupuncture (95% CI) compared with standard care. The overall vomiting in the acupuncture and usual-care groups was 44.2% and 47.9%, respectively. Nausea was experienced by 31.7% in the acupuncture group and by 32.6% in the usual-care group. The test power was acceptable for comparisons of vomiting.

Conclusions

The findings suggest that when controlling for possible placebo effects standardised PC6 acupuncture needling during anaesthesia without further stimulation of PC6 is not effective in reducing nausea and vomiting in children after tonsillectomy with or without adenoidectomy. Future studies should investigate acupuncture treatment which balances adequate dose and technique and a feasible, child-friendly acupuncture treatment.

Trial Registration Number

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01729052.

Key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in complementary and alternative medicine--a systematic literature review

BACKGROUND

In the last 2 decades there has been a large increase in publications on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). However, CAM research methodology was heterogeneous and often of low quality. The aim of this systematic review was to investigate scientific publications with regards to general issues, concepts and strategies. We also looked at research priorities and methods employed to evaluate the clinical and epidemiological research of CAM in the past to identify the basis for consensus-based research strategies.

METHODS

We performed a systematic literature search for papers published between 1990 and 2010 in 7 electronic databases (Medline, Web of Science, PsychArticles, PsycInfo, CINAHL, EMBASE and Cochrane Library) on December 16 and 17, 2010. In addition, experts were asked to nominate relevant papers. Inclusion criteria were publications dealing with research methodology, priorities or complexities in the scientific evaluation of CAM. All references were assessed in a multistage process to identify relevant papers.

RESULTS

From the 3,279 references derived from the search and 98 references contributed by CAM experts, 170 papers fulfilled the criteria and were included in the analysis. The following key issues were identified: difficulties in past CAM research (e.g., randomisation, blinding), utility of quantitative and qualitative research methods in CAM, priority setting in CAM research and specific issues regarding various CAM modalities.

CONCLUSIONS

Most authors vote for the use of commonly accepted research methods to evaluate CAM. There was broad consensus that a mixed methods approach is the most suitable for gathering conclusive knowledge about CAM.

Manual acupuncture for treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a systematic review of randomized controlled trials

OBJECTIVE

Manual acupuncture has commonly been used in China, either alone or in combination with conventional medicine, to treat diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). The objective of this study was to perform a systematic review to evaluate the potential benefits and harms of manual acupuncture for DPN to justify its clinical use.

METHODS

We searched for published and unpublished randomized controlled trials of manual acupuncture for DPN till 31 March 2013. Revman 5.2 software was used for data analysis with effect estimate presented as relative risk (RR) and mean difference (MD) with a 95% confidence interval (CI).

RESULTS

A total of 25 trials involving 1649 participants were included. The methodological quality of included trials was generally poor. Meta-analysis showed that manual acupuncture had better effect on global symptom improvement compared with mecobalamin (RR 1.31, 95%CI 1.21 to 1.42), vitamin B1 and B12 (RR 1.55, 95%CI 1.33 to 1.80), and no treatment (RR 1.56, 95%CI 1.31 to 1.85), and that the combination of manual acupuncture and mecobalamin had better effect compared with mecobalamin alone on global symptom improvement (RR 1.56, 95%CI 1.28 to 1.90). Adverse events were not reported in any trials. The asymmetric funnel plot suggested publication bias.

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the number of trials of manual acupuncture for DPN and their uniformly positive results, no clinically relevant conclusions can be drawn from this review due to the trials' high risks of bias and the possibility of publication bias. Clearly defined and internationally acknowledged outcome measures are required for future study. There remains an urgent need for training Chinese researchers in conducting unbiased trials as well as prospectively registering all initiated Chinese trials to avoid publication bias.

Acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Evidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide evidence-based guidance on the effects of acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous, and methodologically unsound trials. We conducted a new systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to estimate the effects of acupuncture for treating IBS.

METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011. Eligible RCTs compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment. Our outcomes were overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. Dichotomous data were pooled to provide a relative risk (RR) of substantial improvement after treatment, and continuous data were pooled to provide a standardized mean difference (SMD) in post-treatment scores between groups.

RESULTS

A total of 17 RCTs (N=1,806) were included. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham acupuncture on symptom severity (SMD=-0.11, 95% confidence interval (95% CI): -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs) or quality of life (SMD=-0.03, 95% CI: -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs). Because of the homogeneity of the results of the sham-controlled trials, results were unaffected by restriction to the four sham-controlled RCTs that used adequate randomization, blinding, and had few withdrawals/dropouts. Among RCTs that did not use a placebo control, acupuncture was more effective than pharmacological therapy (RR of symptom improvement=1.28, 95% CI: 1.12 to 1.45; 5 RCTs) and no (specific) treatment (RR = 2.11, 95% CI: 1.18 to 3.79; 2 RCTs). There was no difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR=1.07, 95% CI: 0.90 to 1.27; 2 RCTs) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR=1.05, 95% CI: 0.87 to 1.26; 1 RCT). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was statistically significantly better than the other treatment alone, in trials with a high risk of bias (RR=1.17, 95% CI: 1.02 to 1.33; 4 RCTs).

CONCLUSIONS

Sham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control on IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from pharmacological therapies. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or patients' greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drugs.

Acupuncture for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, costly, and difficult to treat disorder that impairs health-related quality of life and work productivity. Evidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide guidance on the effects of acupuncture for IBS because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous and methodologically unsound trials.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for treating IBS.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and RCTs that evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment, in adults with IBS were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We extracted data for the outcomes overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. For dichotomous data (e.g. the IBS Adequate Relief Question), we calculated a pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for substantial improvement in symptom severity after treatment. For continuous data (e.g. the IBS Severity Scoring System), we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI in post-treatment scores between groups.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs (1806 participants) were included. Five RCTs compared acupuncture versus sham acupuncture. The risk of bias in these studies was low. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham (placebo) acupuncture for symptom severity (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs; 281 patients) or quality of life (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs; 253 patients). Sensitivity analyses based on study quality did not change the results. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes in the sham controlled trials was moderate due to sparse data. The risk of bias in the four Chinese language comparative effectiveness trials that compared acupuncture with drug treatment was high due to lack of blinding. The risk of bias in the other studies that did not use a sham control was high due to lack of blinding or inadequate methods used for randomization and allocation concealment or both. Acupuncture was significantly more effective than pharmacological therapy and no specific treatment. Eighty-four per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 63% of patients in the pharmacological treatment group (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.45; 5 studies, 449 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to a high risk of bias (no blinding) and sparse data. Sixty-three per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 34% of patients in the no specific therapy group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.79; 2 studies, 181 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.27; 2 studies; 181 patients) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.26; 1 study; 100 patients). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was significantly better than the other treatment alone. Ninety-three per cent of patients in the adjuvant acupuncture group improved compared to 79% of patients who received Chinese medicine alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33; 4 studies; 466 patients). There was one adverse event (i.e. acupuncture syncope) associated with acupuncture in the 9 trials that reported this outcome, although relatively small sample sizes limit the usefulness of these safety data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control for IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from two antispasmodic drugs (pinaverium bromide and trimebutine maleate), both of which have been shown to provide a modest benefit for IBS. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drug therapy.

Acupuncture for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, costly, and difficult to treat disorder that impairs health-related quality of life and work productivity. Evidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide guidance on the effects of acupuncture for IBS because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous and methodologically unsound trials.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for treating IBS.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and RCTs that evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment, in adults with IBS were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We extracted data for the outcomes overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. For dichotomous data (e.g. the IBS Adequate Relief Question), we calculated a pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for substantial improvement in symptom severity after treatment. For continuous data (e.g. the IBS Severity Scoring System), we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI in post-treatment scores between groups.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs (1806 participants) were included. Five RCTs compared acupuncture versus sham acupuncture. The risk of bias in these studies was low. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham (placebo) acupuncture for symptom severity (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs; 281 patients) or quality of life (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs; 253 patients). Sensitivity analyses based on study quality did not change the results. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes in the sham controlled trials was moderate due to sparse data. The risk of bias in the four Chinese language comparative effectiveness trials that compared acupuncture with drug treatment was high due to lack of blinding. The risk of bias in the other studies that did not use a sham control was high due to lack of blinding or inadequate methods used for randomization and allocation concealment or both. Acupuncture was significantly more effective than pharmacological therapy and no specific treatment. Eighty-four per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 63% of patients in the pharmacological treatment group (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.45; 5 studies, 449 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to a high risk of bias (no blinding) and sparse data. Sixty-three per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 34% of patients in the no specific therapy group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.79; 2 studies, 181 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.27; 2 studies; 181 patients) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.26; 1 study; 100 patients). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was significantly better than the other treatment alone. Ninety-three per cent of patients in the adjuvant acupuncture group improved compared to 79% of patients who received Chinese medicine alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33; 4 studies; 466 patients). There was one adverse event (i.e. acupuncture syncope) associated with acupuncture in the 9 trials that reported this outcome, although relatively small sample sizes limit the usefulness of these safety data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control for IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from two antispasmodic drugs (pinaverium bromide and trimebutine maleate), both of which have been shown to provide a modest benefit for IBS. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drug therapy.

Acupuncture for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome

BACKGROUND

Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a common, costly, and difficult to treat disorder that impairs health-related quality of life and work productivity. Evidence-based treatment guidelines have been unable to provide guidance on the effects of acupuncture for IBS because the only previous systematic review included only small, heterogeneous and methodologically unsound trials.

OBJECTIVES

The primary objectives were to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for treating IBS.

SEARCH METHODS

MEDLINE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health, and the Chinese databases Sino-Med, CNKI, and VIP were searched through November 2011.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared acupuncture with sham acupuncture, other active treatments, or no (specific) treatment, and RCTs that evaluated acupuncture as an adjuvant to another treatment, in adults with IBS were included.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed the risk of bias and extracted data. We extracted data for the outcomes overall IBS symptom severity and health-related quality of life. For dichotomous data (e.g. the IBS Adequate Relief Question), we calculated a pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for substantial improvement in symptom severity after treatment. For continuous data (e.g. the IBS Severity Scoring System), we calculated the standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI in post-treatment scores between groups.

MAIN RESULTS

Seventeen RCTs (1806 participants) were included. Five RCTs compared acupuncture versus sham acupuncture. The risk of bias in these studies was low. We found no evidence of an improvement with acupuncture relative to sham (placebo) acupuncture for symptom severity (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.13; 4 RCTs; 281 patients) or quality of life (SMD = -0.03, 95% CI -0.27 to 0.22; 3 RCTs; 253 patients). Sensitivity analyses based on study quality did not change the results. A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for the primary outcomes in the sham controlled trials was moderate due to sparse data. The risk of bias in the four Chinese language comparative effectiveness trials that compared acupuncture with drug treatment was high due to lack of blinding. The risk of bias in the other studies that did not use a sham control was high due to lack of blinding or inadequate methods used for randomization and allocation concealment or both. Acupuncture was significantly more effective than pharmacological therapy and no specific treatment. Eighty-four per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 63% of patients in the pharmacological treatment group (RR 1.28, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.45; 5 studies, 449 patients). A GRADE analysis indicated that the overall quality of the evidence for this outcome was low due to a high risk of bias (no blinding) and sparse data. Sixty-three per cent of patients in the acupuncture group had improvement in symptom severity compared to 34% of patients in the no specific therapy group (RR 2.11, 95% CI 1.18 to 3.79; 2 studies, 181 patients). There was no statistically significant difference between acupuncture and Bifidobacterium (RR 1.07, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.27; 2 studies; 181 patients) or between acupuncture and psychotherapy (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.26; 1 study; 100 patients). Acupuncture as an adjuvant to another Chinese medicine treatment was significantly better than the other treatment alone. Ninety-three per cent of patients in the adjuvant acupuncture group improved compared to 79% of patients who received Chinese medicine alone (RR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02 to 1.33; 4 studies; 466 patients). There was one adverse event (i.e. acupuncture syncope) associated with acupuncture in the 9 trials that reported this outcome, although relatively small sample sizes limit the usefulness of these safety data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Sham-controlled RCTs have found no benefits of acupuncture relative to a credible sham acupuncture control for IBS symptom severity or IBS-related quality of life. In comparative effectiveness Chinese trials, patients reported greater benefits from acupuncture than from two antispasmodic drugs (pinaverium bromide and trimebutine maleate), both of which have been shown to provide a modest benefit for IBS. Future trials may help clarify whether or not these reportedly greater benefits of acupuncture relative to pharmacological therapies are due entirely to patients' preferences for acupuncture or greater expectations of improvement on acupuncture relative to drug therapy.

A systematic review of the effect of expectancy on treatment responses to acupuncture

Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture often find equivalent responses to real and placebo acupuncture despite both appearing superior to no treatment. This raises questions regarding the mechanisms of acupuncture, especially the contribution of patient expectancies. We systematically reviewed previous research assessing the relationship between expectancy and treatment responses following acupuncture, whether real or placebo. To be included, studies needed to assess and/or manipulate expectancies about acupuncture and relate these to at least one health-relevant outcome. Nine such independent studies were identified through systematic searches of Medline, PsycInfo, PubMed, and Cochrane Clinical Trials Register. The methodology and reporting of these studies were quite heterogeneous, meaning that meta-analysis was not possible. A descriptive review revealed that five studies found statistically significant effects of expectancy on a least one outcome, with three also finding evidence suggestive of an interaction between expectancy and type of acupuncture (real or placebo). While there were some trends in significant effects in terms of study characteristics, their generality is limited by the heterogeneity of study designs. The differences in design across studies highlight some important methodological considerations for future research in this area, particularly regarding whether to assess or manipulate expectancies and how best to assess expectancies.

Exposing the evidence gap for complementary and alternative medicine to be integrated into science-based medicine

When people who advocate integrating conventional science-based medicine with complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) are confronted with the lack of evidence to support CAM they counter by calling for more research, diverting attention to the 'package of care' and its non-specific effects, and recommending unblinded 'pragmatic trials'. We explain why these responses cannot close the evidence gap, and focus on the risk of biased results from open (unblinded) pragmatic trials. These are clinical trials which compare a treatment with 'usual care' or no additional care. Their risk of bias has been overlooked because the components of outcome measurements have not been taken into account. The components of an outcome measure are the specific effect of the intervention and non-specific effects such as true placebo effects, cognitive measurement biases, and other effects (which tend to cancel out when similar groups are compared). Negative true placebo effects ('frustrebo effects') in the comparison group, and cognitive measurement biases in the comparison group and the experimental group make the non-specific effect look like a benefit for the intervention group. However, the clinical importance of these effects is often dismissed or ignored without justification. The bottom line is that, for results from open pragmatic trials to be trusted, research is required to measure the clinical importance of true placebo effects, cognitive bias effects, and specific effects of treatments.

Recent clinical trials of acupuncture in the West: responses from the practitioners

In the West, hundreds of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have been performed testing acupuncture. They include two types: those that compare acupuncture to other therapies, usual care or no treatment (pragmatic trials), and those that have placebo controls (efficacy trials). Acupuncture has generally performed well against other therapies or no treatment, but until recently, the evidence from placebo controlled trials has been considered equivocal or contradictory. A recent series of large RCTs, mostly performed in Germany and also in the US have included both pragmatic and placebo comparisons. The evidence poises a conundrum for the profession of acupuncture. This essay first describes the two types of RCTs used to examine acupuncture and examine the results of two recent large RCTs for chronic low back pain as representative examples of recent large studies. The essay then presents the most common Euro-American acupuncture professions' interpretation of these results. Western responses have included: (1) methodological weaknesses; (2) inappropriateness of placebo controls; (3) questions as to whether acupuncture placebo controls are "inert"; (4) rejection of evidence-based medicine epistemology; (5) discrepancy between acupuncture performed in RCTs with real world acupuncture; (6) enhanced placebo effects of acupuncture; and (7) needs to re-evaluate acupuncture theory. The authors do not necessarily agree with all of these responses; they are presented in an attempt to foster critical discussion. The paper also looks at recent neuroimaging experiments on acupuncture that may point to some worthwhile new avenues of investigation. Finally, the Euro-American health care policy consequences of these recent RCTs are discussed.

Is evaluating complementary and alternative medicine equivalent to evaluating the absurd?

Complementary and alternative therapies such as reflexology and acupuncture have been the subject of numerous evaluations, clinical trials, and systematic reviews, yet the empirical evidence in support of their efficacy remains equivocal. The empirical evaluation of a therapy would normally assume a plausible rationale regarding the mechanism of action. However, examination of the historical background and underlying principles for reflexology, iridology, acupuncture, auricular acupuncture, and some herbal medicines, reveals a rationale founded on the principle of analogical correspondences, which is a common basis for magical thinking and pseudoscientific beliefs such as astrology and chiromancy. Where this is the case, it is suggested that subjecting these therapies to empirical evaluation may be tantamount to evaluating the absurd.

Are positive alternative medical therapy trials credible?: Evidence from four high-impact medical journals

Forty-five complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) efficacy randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from high-impact medical journals (NEJM, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, and Archives of Internal Medicine) were reviewed based on their meeting three validity criteria (the existence of a placebo control, moderate attrition rates, and 50 or more participants per group). Of the 26 efficacy trials meeting all three criteria, only 2 (7.7%) were judged to be positive (i.e., the alternative therapy was significantly superior to its placebo control), while over half (55.5%) of the 19 trials that failed to meet one or more of these criteria reported positive results (p < .001). Of the two positive high-validity trials, one was funded and authored by the herbal company marketing the product tested and one used a placebo-control group of questionable credibility. This analysis is consistent with the hypothesis that CAM therapies are no more effective than placebos when adequate experimental control is present.