Guest guest Posted July 10, 2008 Report Share Posted July 10, 2008 This comes for another list but i thought people should see this. Until we start doing high quality research we just cant support a lot of what we do I went to an interesting lecture a couple days ago and wanted to share the contents with y'all- 1st Speaker- Liang Fan-rong (æ¢ç¹è£), Assistant Principal of Chengdu University of TCM " Thoughts about acupuncture's development and its current state " Prof. Liang started out with a familiar complaint- " TCM gets no gvt. support in China, and everybody attacks us for not being 'scientific' enough. " He gave the example of the suggestion last year by Central Southern U. Prof. Zhang Gong-yue that TCM be completely removed from the government sector within 5 years and 'given back to the people.' He wanted to " throw away the medicine and keeps the drugs. " (åºŸåŒ»å˜ è¯) In the resulting (mostly online) uproar a lot of good responses were given to Zhang's criticism and the end result was greater support for TCM from the Health Dept. A lot of Professor Liang's comments defending the scientific nature of TCM were based on the fact that TCM is becoming increasingly popular and respected in the US. The argument seemed to be " The West is the home of modern science, and they take it seriously there... why don't we? " He seemed to think this point was particularly important, that in the US " alternative medicine is known as holistic medicine. " I'm not sure if he was just talking about TCM or other modalities as well, but what he was emphasizing was that the scientific principals underlying holism cannot be proved or disproved by doing laboratory research. Other things- Prof. Liang said that in the current " eleven-five " plan TCM-related research spending by the government increased by about 10 times over the amount during the " ten-five " period. Currently there is much more money available then people know how to use. In his opinion, current research conducted in China is of very poor quality. The use of fMRI in acupuncture research is very promising. 2nd Speaker: He Jin-lin (何金林), Professor of Acupuncture, Shanghai TCM U. " Thoughts about " identifying patterns and determining treatment " (bian4 zheng4 lun4 zhi4) in clinical acupuncture " Prof. He took an interesting topic for his talk- a letter from a Japanese Medical journal with pointed questions about the practice of acupuncture in China. The questions were collected from some of the tens of thousands of Japanese who have studied acupuncture in China. Questions like: " Why don't Chinese acupuncturists " identify patterns and determine treatment " ? Why do they just ask what disease the patient has then stick in the needles? Why is the process of bian zheng lun zhi in acupuncture textbooks exactly the same as in internal medicine (ie herbal medicine) textbooks? Why is the selection of acupoints in China done in a " meal set " style? (ie X disease=X set of points) I was surprised at this choice of topic for a number of reasons, the first being that Chinese in general are very sensitive about criticism from 'outside'... and secondly that this criticism was coming from Japan. When he first mentioned the word 'Japan' the room palpably tensed up, a feeling I am used to when sitting in a class full of Chinese students. However, since Koizumi left his position and relations between the two countries have eased up a little teachers have been mentioning Japan more and more, especially when talking about clinical use of Shang Han Lun theory and formulas. Anyway, Professor He went on to say that he completely agreed with this criticism! He offered a few reasons that might have led to this, including the role of 'barefoot doctors' and military doctors in the TCM education system (meaning very simple direct treatments and no theory), and the affect of the role interns play in modern TCM hospitals (meaning that the Doctor does the preliminary diagnosis then the helpers and interns carry out the treatment, with the unfortunate side-effect that Doctors don't have much of a chance to improve their craft). He also defended some of the seemingly simplistic treatments, saying that some of them are very effective and have been refined and simplified by generations of doctors, and also that even with a 'set menu' style of point selection there is still a lot of flexibility in choosing needling techniques for each point. 3rd Speaker: Zhu Bing, Chief, Acupuncture Research Dept. of China TCM Research Institute. " Current Acupuncture Research " Several interesting comments- Medical research in China on average shows 99% efficacy and acupuncture research shows 100% efficacy. In his opinion this shows that the majority of this research is pointless. Generally speaking, acupuncture has been shown to be effective. What should research focus on now? There are major problems with the reliability of the results reported in clinical acupuncture research (in China)- including: the majority of patients receiving acupuncture treatment are also receiving other (unspecified) treatment; most doctors have a very casual and friendly relationship with their patients, and assessment of efficacy is usually done by asking " so, are you feeling a bit better? " which of course will elicit a response of " oh yea, yea, I'm feeling better, thanks " ... which is then recorded as a being a effective treatment. He spent some time discussing two recent examples of well carried-out research, the German lower-back-pain one and another I didn't recognize about migraines. He said the quality of this research far exceeds that of any research carried out in China so far, in terms of size of sample, control of treatment, efficacy measurement, etc. The room gave a little sigh when he showed the conclusion from the German study, namely that traditional acupuncture points and 'fake' acupuncture points get the same results. He did point out that this only showed the pain-relieving effect, and that this could be much different from purported connections to internal organs. He also said there is no conclusive evidence showing that acupoints are small, and that " we can't blame foreigners for thinking this as this concept came from China and is shown on the 'bronze man' acupuncture models. " In his opinion there is no reason to believe that traditional acupoints are actually 'points,' and that skin level points in particular could cover broad areas. He introduced some of his ideas for better acupuncture research, including using the methods used in WM external medicine surgical research. Well, that is about all I can remember. I don't know how well these three individuals represent the current trends in acupuncture in China today (especially because I received Jason Robertson's book that same morning!) but I hope y'all found this informative anyway! Regards, Henry 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Alon, Thanks for the notes. Are there research studies out there which track the progress of patients who are given acupuncture treatments based on pattern diagnosis, instead of using a generic acupuncture rx recipe? I'm sure that would create different results than doing the same points for a biomedical condition, regardless of the Chinese medical diagnosis. Also, it is interesting that China is validating Chinese medicine based on the way that America is accepting it into the holistic medicine model. I guess that puts even more responsibility on us to do a good job. K. On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:27 AM, alon marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > This comes for another list but i thought people should see this. > Until we start doing high quality research we just cant support a lot > of what we do > > I went to an interesting lecture a couple days ago and wanted to share > the contents with y'all- > > 1st Speaker- Liang Fan-rong (Áº·±ÈÙ), Assistant Principal of Chengdu > University of TCM > > " Thoughts about acupuncture's development and its current state " > > Prof. Liang started out with a familiar complaint- " TCM gets no gvt. > support in China, and everybody attacks us for not being 'scientific' > enough. " He gave the example of the suggestion last year by Central > Southern U. Prof. Zhang Gong-yue that TCM be completely removed from > the government sector within 5 years and 'given back to the people.' > He wanted to " throw away the medicine and keeps the drugs. " (·ÏÒ½´æ > Ò©) In the resulting (mostly online) uproar a lot of good responses > were given to Zhang's criticism and the end result was greater support > for TCM from the Health Dept. > > A lot of Professor Liang's comments defending the scientific nature > of TCM were based on the fact that TCM is becoming increasingly > popular and respected in the US. The argument seemed to be " The West > is the home of modern science, and they take it seriously there... why > don't we? " He seemed to think this point was particularly important, > that in the US " alternative medicine is known as holistic medicine. " > I'm not sure if he was just talking about TCM or other modalities as > well, but what he was emphasizing was that the scientific principals > underlying holism cannot be proved or disproved by doing laboratory > research. > > Other things- Prof. Liang said that in the current " eleven-five " > plan TCM-related research spending by the government increased by > about 10 times over the amount during the " ten-five " period. Currently > there is much more money available then people know how to use. > > In his opinion, current research conducted in China is of very poor > quality. > > The use of fMRI in acupuncture research is very promising. > > 2nd Speaker: He Jin-lin (ºÎ½ðÁÖ), Professor of Acupuncture, Shanghai > TCM U. > > " Thoughts about " identifying patterns and determining > treatment " (bian4 zheng4 lun4 zhi4) in clinical acupuncture " > > Prof. He took an interesting topic for his talk- a letter from a > Japanese Medical journal with pointed questions about the practice of > acupuncture in China. The questions were collected from some of the > tens of thousands of Japanese who have studied acupuncture in China. > > Questions like: " Why don't Chinese acupuncturists " identify patterns > and determine treatment " ? Why do they just ask what disease the > patient has then stick in the needles? Why is the process of bian > zheng lun zhi in acupuncture textbooks exactly the same as in internal > medicine (ie herbal medicine) textbooks? Why is the selection of > acupoints in China done in a " meal set " style? (ie X disease=X set of > points) > > I was surprised at this choice of topic for a number of reasons, the > first being that Chinese in general are very sensitive about criticism > from 'outside'... and secondly that this criticism was coming from > Japan. When he first mentioned the word 'Japan' the room palpably > tensed up, a feeling I am used to when sitting in a class full of > Chinese students. However, since Koizumi left his position and > relations between the two countries have eased up a little teachers > have been mentioning Japan more and more, especially when talking > about clinical use of Shang Han Lun theory and formulas. > > Anyway, Professor He went on to say that he completely agreed with > this criticism! He offered a few reasons that might have led to this, > including the role of 'barefoot doctors' and military doctors in the > TCM education system (meaning very simple direct treatments and no > theory), and the affect of the role interns play in modern TCM > hospitals (meaning that the Doctor does the preliminary diagnosis then > the helpers and interns carry out the treatment, with the unfortunate > side-effect that Doctors don't have much of a chance to improve their > craft). > > He also defended some of the seemingly simplistic treatments, saying > that some of them are very effective and have been refined and > simplified by generations of doctors, and also that even with a 'set > menu' style of point selection there is still a lot of flexibility in > choosing needling techniques for each point. > > 3rd Speaker: Zhu Bing, Chief, Acupuncture Research Dept. of China TCM > Research Institute. > > " Current Acupuncture Research " > > Several interesting comments- > > Medical research in China on average shows 99% efficacy and > acupuncture research shows 100% efficacy. In his opinion this shows > that the majority of this research is pointless. > > Generally speaking, acupuncture has been shown to be effective. What > should research focus on now? > > There are major problems with the reliability of the results reported > in clinical acupuncture research (in China)- including: the majority > of patients receiving acupuncture treatment are also receiving other > (unspecified) treatment; most doctors have a very casual and friendly > relationship with their patients, and assessment of efficacy is > usually done by asking " so, are you feeling a bit better? " which of > course will elicit a response of " oh yea, yea, I'm feeling better, > thanks " ... which is then recorded as a being a effective treatment. > > He spent some time discussing two recent examples of well carried-out > research, the German lower-back-pain one and another I didn't > recognize about migraines. He said the quality of this research far > exceeds that of any research carried out in China so far, in terms of > size of sample, control of treatment, efficacy measurement, etc. > > The room gave a little sigh when he showed the conclusion from the > German study, namely that traditional acupuncture points and 'fake' > acupuncture points get the same results. He did point out that this > only showed the pain-relieving effect, and that this could be much > different from purported connections to internal organs. He also said > there is no conclusive evidence showing that acupoints are small, and > that " we can't blame foreigners for thinking this as this concept came > from China and is shown on the 'bronze man' acupuncture models. " In > his opinion there is no reason to believe that traditional acupoints > are actually 'points,' and that skin level points in particular could > cover broad areas. > > He introduced some of his ideas for better acupuncture research, > including using the methods used in WM external medicine surgical > research. > > Well, that is about all I can remember. > > I don't know how well these three individuals represent the current > trends in acupuncture in China today (especially because I received > Jason Robertson's book that same morning!) but I hope y'all found this > informative anyway! > > Regards, Henry > > > 400 29th St. Suite 419 > Oakland Ca 94609 > > > > alonmarcus <alonmarcus%40wans.net> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Those notes were from a lecture celebrating the 20th anniversary of the School of Acupuncture and Tuina at the Hunan University of TCM. To (partially) answer your questions, I don't think there has been any research that uses patterns rather than WM diseases for choosing patients. What issues do you think might come up using patterns? For one, I think the subjective (rather then objective) nature of determining patterns in CM would be a problem. I agree with your second comment. It really struck me that all three speakers spent a lot of time talking about how CM is regarded in other countries. The first speaker showed several photos of his visit to the NIH headquarters (and emphasized that there the research areas are large and the offices are small ) and also of a visit to some random university, where he said " CM is not just in small clinics as in the past, but is also being accepted into universities, hospitals, research centers, etc " Regards, Henry Chinese Medicine , " " <johnkokko wrote: > > Alon, > > Thanks for the notes. > Are there research studies out there which track the progress of patients > who are given acupuncture treatments based on pattern diagnosis, instead of > using a generic acupuncture rx recipe? > > I'm sure that would create different results than doing the same points for > a biomedical condition, > regardless of the Chinese medical diagnosis. > > Also, it is interesting that China is validating Chinese medicine based on > the way that America is accepting it into the holistic medicine model. I > guess that puts even more responsibility on us to do a good job. > > K. > > > > On Thu, Jul 10, 2008 at 10:27 AM, alon marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > > > This comes for another list but i thought people should see this. > > Until we start doing high quality research we just cant support a lot > > of what we do > > > > I went to an interesting lecture a couple days ago and wanted to share > > the contents with y'all- > > > > 1st Speaker- Liang Fan-rong (Áº·±ÈÙ), Assistant Principal of Chengdu > > University of TCM > > > > " Thoughts about acupuncture's development and its current state " > > > > Prof. Liang started out with a familiar complaint- " TCM gets no gvt. > > support in China, and everybody attacks us for not being 'scientific' > > enough. " He gave the example of the suggestion last year by Central > > Southern U. Prof. Zhang Gong-yue that TCM be completely removed from > > the government sector within 5 years and 'given back to the people.' > > He wanted to " throw away the medicine and keeps the drugs. " (·ÏÒ½´æ > > Ò©) In the resulting (mostly online) uproar a lot of good responses > > were given to Zhang's criticism and the end result was greater support > > for TCM from the Health Dept. > > > > A lot of Professor Liang's comments defending the scientific nature > > of TCM were based on the fact that TCM is becoming increasingly > > popular and respected in the US. The argument seemed to be " The West > > is the home of modern science, and they take it seriously there... why > > don't we? " He seemed to think this point was particularly important, > > that in the US " alternative medicine is known as holistic medicine. " > > I'm not sure if he was just talking about TCM or other modalities as > > well, but what he was emphasizing was that the scientific principals > > underlying holism cannot be proved or disproved by doing laboratory > > research. > > > > Other things- Prof. Liang said that in the current " eleven-five " > > plan TCM-related research spending by the government increased by > > about 10 times over the amount during the " ten-five " period. Currently > > there is much more money available then people know how to use. > > > > In his opinion, current research conducted in China is of very poor > > quality. > > > > The use of fMRI in acupuncture research is very promising. > > > > 2nd Speaker: He Jin-lin (ºÎ½ðÁÖ), Professor of Acupuncture, Shanghai > > TCM U. > > > > " Thoughts about " identifying patterns and determining > > treatment " (bian4 zheng4 lun4 zhi4) in clinical acupuncture " > > > > Prof. He took an interesting topic for his talk- a letter from a > > Japanese Medical journal with pointed questions about the practice of > > acupuncture in China. The questions were collected from some of the > > tens of thousands of Japanese who have studied acupuncture in China. > > > > Questions like: " Why don't Chinese acupuncturists " identify patterns > > and determine treatment " ? Why do they just ask what disease the > > patient has then stick in the needles? Why is the process of bian > > zheng lun zhi in acupuncture textbooks exactly the same as in internal > > medicine (ie herbal medicine) textbooks? Why is the selection of > > acupoints in China done in a " meal set " style? (ie X disease=X set of > > points) > > > > I was surprised at this choice of topic for a number of reasons, the > > first being that Chinese in general are very sensitive about criticism > > from 'outside'... and secondly that this criticism was coming from > > Japan. When he first mentioned the word 'Japan' the room palpably > > tensed up, a feeling I am used to when sitting in a class full of > > Chinese students. However, since Koizumi left his position and > > relations between the two countries have eased up a little teachers > > have been mentioning Japan more and more, especially when talking > > about clinical use of Shang Han Lun theory and formulas. > > > > Anyway, Professor He went on to say that he completely agreed with > > this criticism! He offered a few reasons that might have led to this, > > including the role of 'barefoot doctors' and military doctors in the > > TCM education system (meaning very simple direct treatments and no > > theory), and the affect of the role interns play in modern TCM > > hospitals (meaning that the Doctor does the preliminary diagnosis then > > the helpers and interns carry out the treatment, with the unfortunate > > side-effect that Doctors don't have much of a chance to improve their > > craft). > > > > He also defended some of the seemingly simplistic treatments, saying > > that some of them are very effective and have been refined and > > simplified by generations of doctors, and also that even with a 'set > > menu' style of point selection there is still a lot of flexibility in > > choosing needling techniques for each point. > > > > 3rd Speaker: Zhu Bing, Chief, Acupuncture Research Dept. of China TCM > > Research Institute. > > > > " Current Acupuncture Research " > > > > Several interesting comments- > > > > Medical research in China on average shows 99% efficacy and > > acupuncture research shows 100% efficacy. In his opinion this shows > > that the majority of this research is pointless. > > > > Generally speaking, acupuncture has been shown to be effective. What > > should research focus on now? > > > > There are major problems with the reliability of the results reported > > in clinical acupuncture research (in China)- including: the majority > > of patients receiving acupuncture treatment are also receiving other > > (unspecified) treatment; most doctors have a very casual and friendly > > relationship with their patients, and assessment of efficacy is > > usually done by asking " so, are you feeling a bit better? " which of > > course will elicit a response of " oh yea, yea, I'm feeling better, > > thanks " ... which is then recorded as a being a effective treatment. > > > > He spent some time discussing two recent examples of well carried-out > > research, the German lower-back-pain one and another I didn't > > recognize about migraines. He said the quality of this research far > > exceeds that of any research carried out in China so far, in terms of > > size of sample, control of treatment, efficacy measurement, etc. > > > > The room gave a little sigh when he showed the conclusion from the > > German study, namely that traditional acupuncture points and 'fake' > > acupuncture points get the same results. He did point out that this > > only showed the pain-relieving effect, and that this could be much > > different from purported connections to internal organs. He also said > > there is no conclusive evidence showing that acupoints are small, and > > that " we can't blame foreigners for thinking this as this concept came > > from China and is shown on the 'bronze man' acupuncture models. " In > > his opinion there is no reason to believe that traditional acupoints > > are actually 'points,' and that skin level points in particular could > > cover broad areas. > > > > He introduced some of his ideas for better acupuncture research, > > including using the methods used in WM external medicine surgical > > research. > > > > Well, that is about all I can remember. > > > > I don't know how well these three individuals represent the current > > trends in acupuncture in China today (especially because I received > > Jason Robertson's book that same morning!) but I hope y'all found this > > informative anyway! > > > > Regards, Henry > > > > > > 400 29th St. Suite 419 > > Oakland Ca 94609 > > > > > > > > alonmarcus <alonmarcus%40wans.net> > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Koko There a few that do " TCM " diagnosis based treatment but they are very small and have other problems with them. Also, even in those the acupuncture group does only vagally better than the control group. The affects are often very small Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 11, 2008 Report Share Posted July 11, 2008 Henry What does this say about our contention that CM positive clinical history supports its use if in China there are so many questions? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 Aside from the placebo theory, how is traditional acupuncture seen to be more effective than putting needles in On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > Koko > There a few that do " TCM " diagnosis based treatment but they are very small > and have other problems with them. Also, even in those the acupuncture group > does only vagally better than the control group. The affects are often very > small > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 12, 2008 Report Share Posted July 12, 2008 sorry, last email went through too soon, How is traditional acupuncture proven to be more effective than " placebo needling " ? Are there any cases/ conditions where there is significant evidence? Anti-nausea with PC 6? Peri-operative knee treatment? What about research for auricular acupuncture? K. On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 6:05 PM, <johnkokko wrote: > Aside from the placebo theory, > how is traditional acupuncture seen to be more effective than putting > needles in > > On Fri, Jul 11, 2008 at 3:18 PM, Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > >> Koko >> There a few that do " TCM " diagnosis based treatment but they are very >> small and have other problems with them. Also, even in those the acupuncture >> group does only vagally better than the control group. The affects are often >> very small >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 The P6 studies are small and have not all been positive. The negative studies are used to question the positive ones. The knee studies are better but the affect is not that large although some have done very well. I am not sure what you mean about aside of placebo 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2008 Report Share Posted July 13, 2008 We do not have strong enough of evidence in western literature, we need to have a couple of large and well designed studies and the schools are the only ones that can do it 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Just saw this today, i have not read the origenal so i cant comment on affect size or anything else, but looks good Alon ARTHRITIS, OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE PAIN, CHRONIC PAIN - Acupuncture, Electroacupuncture, Reference: " A blinded randomised trial of acupuncture (manual and electroacupuncture) compared with a non-penetrating sham for the symptoms of osteoarthritis of the knee, " Jubb R, Tukmachi E, et al, Acupunct Med, 2008; 26(2): 69-78. (Address: Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. E-mail: Ronald.Jubb ). Summary: In a study involving 68 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, treatment with acupuncture was found to be more effective than a 'placebo' (non-penetrating sham acupuncture) in reducing pain and stiffness and improving function. Patients were randomized to either receive actual acupuncture (manual and electroacupuncture) or a placebo treatment (non-penetrating sheathed sham acupuncture), twice weekly, for a period of 5 weeks. Acupuncture points were selected based on the theory of treating Bi syndrome, with points including: LI-4, SP-10, Xiyan, SP-9, GB-34, ST-36, LR-3, BL-40, and BL-57. Results found significantly greater improvement among patients who received acupuncture (mean difference in WOMAC score improvement: 60), as compared to the sham treatment. Subjects in the acupuncture group had a mean change in WOMAC score of 95, compared to only 35 among those who received the sham treatment. Improvements were also found in WOMAC stiffness and function. The between-group difference in improvement significantly decreased 1 month after the treatments ended, though those who received acupuncture still had less pain as compared to baseline. Levels of plasma beta-endorphin were not affected by either treatment. The authors conclude, " These results support earlier research demonstrating that acupuncture can alleviate the pain and disability of osteoarthritis of the knee. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 actually after rereading there is one problem. The treatment group got electroacupuncture so we cant say it was the acupuncture it may have been the electrical stimulation. For a true comparison they should have not used electrical stimulation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2008 Report Share Posted July 14, 2008 Alon, The study used 68 people. The minimum sample size for chronic pain should be 122 according to Bruce Pomeranz in *Acupuncture Analgesia - Basic Research (Clinical Acupuncture - Scientific Basis 2001*). Pomeranz (2001) claims that " the specificity of acupoints in humans has been shown only in acute pain studies but has yet to be properly studied in patients with chronic pain, where the number of patients studied has never exceeded the required statistical minimum of 122 " (pg 13) Why 122 people? Also, the study showed that B-endorphins were not affected: " Levels of plasma beta-endorphin were not affected by either treatment. " What does this say about the mechanism that produced the results? Is it happening in the Spinal Cord? (Within the spinal cord, there is a release of " either enkephalin or dynorphin, but not beta-endorphin. " Doesn't the pituitary gland and hypothalamus gland secrete B-endorphins to the brain to cause analgesia (Gate theory)? Looking at the points, 6 of them are local and 3 are distal. K. On Mon, Jul 14, 2008 at 9:43 AM, Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > Just saw this today, i have not read the origenal so i cant comment on > affect size or anything else, but looks good > Alon > ARTHRITIS, OSTEOARTHRITIS, KNEE PAIN, CHRONIC PAIN - Acupuncture, > Electroacupuncture, > Reference: " A blinded randomised trial of acupuncture (manual and > electroacupuncture) compared with a non-penetrating sham for the symptoms of > osteoarthritis of the knee, " Jubb R, Tukmachi E, et al, Acupunct Med, 2008; > 26(2): 69-78. (Address: Department of Rheumatology, University Hospital > Birmingham, Birmingham, UK. E-mail: Ronald.Jubb<Ronald.Jubb%40uhb.nhs.uk>). > Summary: In a study involving 68 patients with osteoarthritis of the knee, > treatment with acupuncture was found to be more effective than a 'placebo' > (non-penetrating sham acupuncture) in reducing pain and stiffness and > improving function. Patients were randomized to either receive actual > acupuncture (manual and electroacupuncture) or a placebo treatment > (non-penetrating sheathed sham acupuncture), twice weekly, for a period of 5 > weeks. Acupuncture points were selected based on the theory of treating Bi > syndrome, with points including: LI-4, SP-10, Xiyan, SP-9, GB-34, ST-36, > LR-3, BL-40, and BL-57. Results found significantly greater improvement > among patients who received acupuncture (mean difference in WOMAC score > improvement: 60), as compared to the sham treatment. Subjects in the > acupuncture group had a mean change in WOMAC score of 95, compared to only > 35 among those who received the sham treatment. Improvements were also found > in WOMAC stiffness and function. The between-group difference in improvement > significantly decreased 1 month after the treatments ended, though those who > received acupuncture still had less pain as compared to baseline. Levels of > plasma beta-endorphin were not affected by either treatment. The authors > conclude, " These results support earlier research demonstrating that > acupuncture can alleviate the pain and disability of osteoarthritis of the > knee. " > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 In my quick read i thought it was 68 per group. If only 68 total that is not enough to sort out statistical significance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2008 Report Share Posted July 15, 2008 KoKo we dont have info on when they took blood etc so its hard to know, if you read in my book you can see other pathways not related to endorphins 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.