A Voice on Acupuncture Research

Letters to JAMA Exposing Acupuncture Research Flaws Applauded by TCMAAA

TCMAAA calls for stricter adherence to research ethics and well-designed acupuncture studies among the integrative medicine community

TAMPA, Fla.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--In five letters to the editor published in the latest issue of JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, acupuncture clinicians and researchers around the world point to key flaws that call into question the validity and research methods used in a randomized clinical trial published in JAMA in October of 2014. The Australian study, Acupuncture for chronic knee pain: a randomized clinical trial, by Hinman, et al., concluded, "In patients older than 50 years with moderate or severe chronic knee pain, neither laser nor needle acupuncture conferred benefit over sham for pain or function. Our findings do not support acupuncture for these patients." Many American acupuncturists were outraged when the October 2014 article was published in JAMA and have called for a review of the study's design and protocols.

 

Yong Ming Li, MD, Ph.D., of New Jersey challenges that the researchers altered the aims and hypotheses of the study  after  the data was collected and the trial was closed. According to the original aims and hypotheses submitted to the official clinical trials registry in 2009 the objective of the study was not to evaluate the effectiveness of traditional needle acupuncture against sham laser acupuncture, but to evaluate laser acupuncture against sham laser acupuncture with needle acupuncture serving as a positive control for laser acupuncture. Protocols originally filed with the registry as well as the authors' baseline publication do not describe sham laser acupuncture as being a control for needle acupuncture. Dr. Li's letter furthermore debates the validity of using sham laser acupuncture as a control for needle acupuncture, as it is not generally accepted as a valid control for needle acupuncture. 

To read more, click here.