This
author (Rachel Peterman, a student at NYCTCM) believes that the "sham" acupuncture (non-specific
needling), would also have the tendency to stimulate Qi (albeit not as
effectively as well-placed and executed needling), therefore the acupuncture
treatments would appear to provide less clinically significant benefits,
as opposed to studies where acupuncture is compared with a "pure" control
group. "Sham" acupuncture is not analogous
to placebo. "Sham" acupuncture is more
analogous to giving a half dose of medication.
A drug would not appear to be as efficacious if it was compared to a
half-dose, that's why a placebo, with no pharmacologic activity is used
as a control in pharmaceutical clinical trials.
A proper control in an acupuncture study would involve no actual
needling and consequently no stimulation of Qi.
It is unclear whether "sham" acupuncture has been implemented in some
studies in order to intentionally skew the results of the statistical analysis,
or whether it merely reflects an ill-considered and fatally flawed study
design. It is also significant that the
study does not provide the exact acupuncture points used in each study,
although the authors admit that there was not consistency between the
studies. The usual criterion for
meta-analysis is that the studies be identical or extremely close to identical
in design. It is impossible to
determine, based upon the information disclosed in this analysis, whether the
studies were appropriate for meta-analysis.
