This accupuncture story (er, study) is making the rounds through some ovarian cancer networks.

“*These authors equally contributed to the study.

Dana-Farber and Mass General too??

Ursula A. Matulonis, MD,3,* Julie E. Dunn, PhD,2 Hang Lee, PhD,4 Anne Doherty-Gilman, MPH,1 Elizabeth Dean-Clower, MD, MPH,1 Annekathryn Goodman, MD,5 Roger B. Davis, ScD,6 Julie Buring, ScD,6 Peter Wayne, PhD,6 David S. Rosenthal, MD,1 and Richard T. Penson, MD5
1Leonard P. Zakim Center for Integrative Therapies, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
2The New England School of Acupuncture, Newton, MA.
3Department of Medical Oncology, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, MA.
4Biostatistics Center, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
5Department of Gynecologic Oncology & Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA.
6Osher Center for Integrative Medicine, Harvard Medical School and Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, MA.
“

He chose B and this article had something to do with that, so thank you.

I think it would be helpful to try to have some understanding as to what sort of impact we can expect in an RCT of a sham treatment run by researchers who believe in the efficacy of this treatment. Particularly for questionnaire scores like EQ-5D for QALY, which have a big impact upon assessments of cost effectiveness. Unless there are RCTs for a treatment showing a greater impact than that expected for sham treatments, maybe it would be a fair to assume that the treatment was not worth providing?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%28Vickers%20AAuthor%29%20AND%20Goyal%20NAuthor

Control Clin Trials. 1998 Apr;19(2):159-66.
Do certain countries produce only positive results? A systematic review of controlled trials.
Vickers A, Goyal N, Harland R, Rees R.
Source

Research Council for Complementary Medicine, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:

To determine whether clinical trials originating in certain countries always have positive results.
DATA SOURCES:

Abstracts of trials from Medline (January 1966-June 1995).
STUDY SELECTION:

Two separate studies were conducted. The first included trials in which the clinical outcome of a group of subjects receiving acupuncture was compared to that of a group receiving placebo, no treatment, or a nonacupuncture intervention. In the second study, randomized or controlled trials of interventions other than acupuncture that were published in China, Japan, Russia/USSR, or Taiwan were compared to those published in England.
DATA EXTRACTION:

Blinded reviewers determined inclusion and outcome and separately classified each trial by country of origin.
DATA SYNTHESIS:

In the study of acupuncture trials, 252 of 1085 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Research conducted in certain countries was uniformly favorable to acupuncture; all trials originating in China, Japan, Hong Kong, and Taiwan were positive, as were 10 out of 11 of those published in Russia/USSR. In studies that examined interventions other than acupuncture, 405 of 1100 abstracts met the inclusion criteria. Of trials published in England, 75% gave the test treatment as superior to control. The results for China, Japan, Russia/USSR, and Taiwan were 99%, 89%, 97%, and 95%, respectively. No trial published in China or Russia/USSR found a test treatment to be ineffective.
CONCLUSIONS:

Some countries publish unusually high proportions of positive results. Publication bias is a possible explanation. Researchers undertaking systematic reviews should consider carefully how to manage data from these countries.

Sufficient prior plausibility and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence are different ways of saying the same thing.

I think SBM is trying to fill a blind spot in EBM that was not recognised when the project was instituted.

I think Brennen’s comments about how the ‘higher’ levels of the hierarchy of EBM evidence can be distorted are really important. SCAMsters have seemingly deliberately constructed an edifice to provide support for their therapies that stands in parallel to EBM and looks quite like it, but is actually mere stage-scenery built without proper foundations.

I wonder if they had as much fun writing that sentence as I had reading it.

Jay

https://sites.google.com/site/skepticalmedicine/pseudoscience-in-health-care/acupuncture#TOC-Is-There-Evidence-for-Acupuncture-

I fear that is not a completely reliable guide. I have a copy of the book “Somatovisceral Aspects of Chiropractic: An Evidence-Based Approach.” I perused it carefully but was unable to find anything in it that I could call evidence.

Would that be a reasonable way to bet? As far as I know, alt med supporters haven’t been notably trying to co-opt the term to signal something like “we may not have the science, but we have the evidence via personal experience to base this on wink*wink*.”

Being a lover of maths (how geeky is that?) I love your equation for its simplicity and accuracy; well done!

Here in Australia, we ( Australian Veterinary Association) tend to use the term EBM as you would use SBM. In fact a recent AVA annual conference was titled “Evidence Based Medicine”. But I guess that what we SBM type vets are doing is first looking for prior plausibility before looking at any results. Sadly there are those among us who don’t look for prior plausibility and who are quite happy to accept an article printed in Dog Lovers Monthly as strong evidence for the use of quackery.

If you want to see the type of garbage that one “vet” in Geelong practises, have a look at this site

pawstoheal.com.au have a bucket handy in case it makes you sick

The AVA has recently banned people like the Geelong vet from receiving continuing veterinary education points for subjects like homeopathy and other such favourites. These points are required in order to maintain your right to practice. If I was in charge of the AVA, the plan would be……take down your “vet” sign and hang up your “quack” sign so that your victims know who you really are.

Have a great day Harriet

Harriet Hall on 12 Oct 2012 at 12:32 pm

I prefer EBM + CS = SBM

CS stands for Common Sense

I agree with the intent, but “common sense” is too often used in a way that is similar to “intuition”. I try to avoid using that phrase in general because I am worried that people might take it the wrong way.

https://nccam.nih.gov/research/blog/quirkyideas#comments

Yes Dr. Briggs actually uses false analogies about treatments that were outside of “traditional” medicine to justify some of the ridiculous studies, funded by NCCAM:

“Throughout the history of medicine, there are a number of examples of “quirky” ideas that encountered resistance from mainstream medicine, but eventually, through a combination of clinical experience and scientific pursuit, led to changes in health care. For example:

Physical resistance training is good for people recovering from major physical trauma: Joseph Pilates, 1915

Relaxation and breathing techniques help with the pain of childbirth: Fernand Lamaze, 1940

Breastfeeding is good for babies, and mothers need help and support to establish successful
breastfeeding: Edwina Froehlich, La Leche League founder, 1950s

Extensive palliative support and reduced medical interventions should be provided to dying patients: Saunders, Wald, Kubler-Ross, 1960s

So, sometimes good things come from challenges to mainstream orthodoxy. With that said, I do not advocate that we study every “quirky” idea that is proposed, but we must be willing to cast a critical eye over these ideas before dismissing them out-of-hand.”

Many of the commenters on that post (including several who post on SBM), took her to task for her citing non-NCCAM-funded studies as “quirky ideas” and for her avoidance of “prior plausibility” while justifying the recently NCCAM-funded meta-analysis of acupuncture studies.