Acupuncture in mainstream health careBMJ 2006; 333 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.38954.627361.BE (Published 21 September 2006) Cite this as: BMJ 2006;333:611
All rapid responses
Wonderling states that the case is made for acupuncture in the
treatment of migraine1. The primary research by Wonderling and Vickers2 is
cited as evidence for this, though Wonderling drawns attention to the lack
of difference in outcomes between real and sham acupuncture in tension-
type headaches demonstrated by Melchart and Linde3.
were replicated by Linde and Melcart4 in similar research which showed an
even greater benefit from acupuncture compared to usual care. However this
latter paper, not cited by Wonderling, also had a sham acupuncture arm
which had outcomes identical to the acupuncture arm: acupuncture in this
case worked by the placebo affect. The Wonderling study2 had main outcomes
based on measures unique to the study whilst the Linde study4 used
internationally recognised outcomes. Furthermore the outcomes of the
Wonderling study2 were highly subjective continuous and ordinal variables
whilst in the Linde study4 the outcomes were binary. Subjective outcomes
are much more susceptible to the placebo effect and the biased
misreporting of unblinded participants who would also have been selected
in a biased manner in favour of acupuncture.
Vickers, Melchart and Linde collaborated on the Cochrane Library review of
acupuncture for idiopathic headache5 which attempted "to determine
whether acupuncture is more effective than no treatment and/or more
effective than 'sham' (placebo) acupuncture" and concluded that "There is
an urgent need for well-planned, large-scale studies". Of the two studies
only Linde's4 meets the desired obectives.
Furthermore if the use of sham acupuncture demonstrated that acupuncture
achieved its benefits through the placebo affect in migraine, that might
also be the case in low back pain casting doubt on the conclusions of the
cited study on acupuncture low back pain6 as there was no 'sham' arm, only
usual care for comparison.
This editorial may well be cited as justification for the use of
acupuncture. A peer reviewed journal such as the BMJ should take more care
when it publishes such a biased editorial based on incomplete analysis.
1 Wonderling D.Acupuncture in mainstream health care.BMJ 2006;333:611
2 Wonderling D, Vickers AJ, Grieve R, McCartney R. Cost effectiveness
analysis of a randomised trial of acupuncture for chronic headache in
primary care. BMJ 2004;328: 747-52.
3 Melchart D, Streng A, Hoppe A, Brinkhaus B, Witt C, Wagenpfeil S, et al.
Acupuncture in patients with tension-type headache: randomised controlled
trial. BMJ 2005;331: 376-82.
4 Linde K, Streng A, Jurgens S, Hoppe A, Brinkhaus B, Witt C, Wagenpfeil
S, Pfaffenrath V, Hammes MG, Weidenhammer W, Willich SN, Melchart D.
Acupuncture for patients with migraine: a randomized controlled trial.
JAMA. 2005 May 4;293(17):2118-25.
5 Melchart D, Linde K, Berman B, White A, Vickers A, Allais G, Brinkhaus
B. Acupuncture for idiopathic headache. Cochrane Database of Systematic
Reviews 2001, Issue 1. Art. No.: CD001218.
6 Thomas KJ, MacPherson H, Thorpe L, Brazier J, Fitter M, Campbell MJ, et
al. Randomised controlled trial of a short course of traditional
acupuncture compared with usual care for persistent non-specific low back
pain. BMJ 2006; 333:623-6
Competing interests: No competing interests
Acupuncture is not only cost-effective for low back pain (1,2) it is
safe too. In his editorial (3), David Wonderling emphasises the importance
of taking adverse effects into account in economic evaluations.
Unfortunately, in stating that acupuncture ‘sometimes has serious side
effects’ he seems to have misread his reference (Vincent) (4). This was
also a BMJ editorial introducing two articles about acupuncture, being
prospective studies of adverse events. Both found no serious adverse
events, the first after 34 407 acupuncture treatments (5) and the second
after 31 822 treatments (6).
Vincent himself concluded in 2001 that acupuncture is safe in the
hands of competent practitioners and referred to the inadequacy of
anecdotal reports of serious adverse effects in the early literature.
(1) K J Thomas et al BMJ 2006 333: 623
(2) J Ratcliffe et al BMJ 2006 333: 626.
(3) D Wonderling BMJ.2006 333: 611-612
(4) C Vincent BMJ 2001 323: 467-468
(5) H MacPherson et al BMJ 2001 323: 486-487
(6) A White et al BMJ 2001 323: 485-486.
Competing interests: No competing interests