Guest guest Posted March 19, 2004 Report Share Posted March 19, 2004 Atillio, > If a placebo needle is used, then the control group would be nothing more > than nothing, a placebo. It would be difficult to justify a credible > intervention against a placebo. This is not strictly so because the placebo needle raises issues of blinding, issues of patient expectation and issues of statistical controls. The rush to get a " placebo needle " into trials is motivated by the costs of performing the type of irrelevant treatment studies or outcomes trials that create controls without these problems. Bob Robert L. Felt bob Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2004 Report Share Posted March 20, 2004 Hi Bob, I've found an article that quotes the effects of placebo, sham and acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain sufferers. 1. A placebo is effective in 30-35% of patients with chronic pain. 2. Sham acupuncture is effective in approximately 50% of patients with chronic pain. 3. Real acupuncture is effective in 60-70% of patients with chronic pain. (Lewith and Machin) (cited in Strauss 1999, p116). I not sure if the difference between the placebo/sham and acupuncture rates would be statically significant in a RCT. This may be the problem in current studies. Testing acupuncture against a allopathic analgesic may also be too close to be statically significant. There is of course the idea acupuncture cannot fit a RCT model because its based upon the individual's illness and syndrome differentiation. However, as the Glaxo head recently said that half his medicines don't work on patients, this may also prove that placebo works aswell in allopathic medicine and that the RCT model does work with at all. Attilio " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...> wrote: > Atillio, > > > If a placebo needle is used, then the control group would be nothing more > > than nothing, a placebo. It would be difficult to justify a credible > > intervention against a placebo. > > This is not strictly so because the placebo needle raises issues of blinding, > issues of patient expectation and issues of statistical controls. The rush to > get a " placebo needle " into trials is motivated by the costs of performing the > type of irrelevant treatment studies or outcomes trials that create controls > without these problems. > > Bob > > Robert L. Felt bob@p... > Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com > 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758 > Taos, New Mexico 87571 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Hi Attilio! What do you mean by RCT? Acronyms are often ambiguous. At 05:12 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: >Hi Bob, > >I've found an article that quotes the effects of placebo, sham and >acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain sufferers. > >1. A placebo is effective in 30-35% of patients with chronic pain. > >2. Sham acupuncture is effective in approximately 50% of patients >with chronic pain. > >3. Real acupuncture is effective in 60-70% of patients with chronic >pain. (Lewith and Machin) (cited in Strauss 1999, p116). > >I not sure if the difference between the placebo/sham and >acupuncture rates would be statically significant in a RCT. This may >be the problem in current studies. Testing acupuncture against a >allopathic analgesic may also be too close to be statically >significant. > >There is of course the idea acupuncture cannot fit a RCT model >because its based upon the individual's illness and syndrome >differentiation. However, as the Glaxo head recently said that half >his medicines don't work on patients, this may also prove that >placebo works aswell in allopathic medicine and that the RCT model >does work with at all. > >Attilio Regards, Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2004 Report Share Posted March 21, 2004 Hi Pete, RCT is the standard term used to describe Randomised Controlled Trials. These are the backbone of medicine even though there often open to misinterpretation and wonderfully crafted statistics. Attilio Pete Theisen <petet@a...> wrote: > Hi Attilio! > > What do you mean by RCT? Acronyms are often ambiguous. > > At 05:12 AM 3/20/2004, you wrote: > >Hi Bob, > > > >I've found an article that quotes the effects of placebo, sham and > >acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain sufferers. > > > >1. A placebo is effective in 30-35% of patients with chronic pain. > > > >2. Sham acupuncture is effective in approximately 50% of patients > >with chronic pain. > > > >3. Real acupuncture is effective in 60-70% of patients with chronic > >pain. (Lewith and Machin) (cited in Strauss 1999, p116). > > > >I not sure if the difference between the placebo/sham and > >acupuncture rates would be statically significant in a RCT. This may > >be the problem in current studies. Testing acupuncture against a > >allopathic analgesic may also be too close to be statically > >significant. > > > >There is of course the idea acupuncture cannot fit a RCT model > >because its based upon the individual's illness and syndrome > >differentiation. However, as the Glaxo head recently said that half > >his medicines don't work on patients, this may also prove that > >placebo works aswell in allopathic medicine and that the RCT model > >does work with at all. > > > >Attilio > > Regards, > > Pete Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.