This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related article  • Similar articles in this journal  Topic Collections  • Statistics and Research Methods  • Complementary and Alternative Medicine  • Pain  • Alert me on articles by topic

Benedict M. Wand, PhD; Neil O’Connell, MSc

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

High-quality clinical research has been defined as research that is carried out in a way that allows us to trust the results, that is, that there is a low risk of bias.¹ The recent German acupuncture study² suggests we need to add to this definition that the outcomes are discussed in a sensible and appropriate way. The authors have constructed a methodologically rigorous trial, but in interpreting their results, they seem to have forgotten why certain design features are important in clinical trials. This has resulted in inappropriate conclusions about the treatment of chronic low back pain being promoted within the pages of the Archives and through the popular media globally.

The authors chose to compare the effectiveness of acupuncture with conventional medical care in a sample with long-standing low back pain. It is highly likely that conventional therapy had already failed in . . . [Full Text of this Article]

AUTHOR INFORMATION

RELATED ARTICLE

German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) for Chronic Low Back Pain: Randomized, Multicenter, Blinded, Parallel-Group Trial With 3 Groups
Michael Haake, Hans-Helge Müller, Carmen Schade-Brittinger, Heinz D. Basler, Helmut Schäfer, Christoph Maier, Heinz G. Endres, Hans J. Trampisch, and Albrecht Molsberger
Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(17):1892-1898.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT