You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


Advertisement

ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | RSS | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 169 No. 19, October 26, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Online Only
 •  Online First Table of
Contents
  Editor's Correspondence
 •Online Features
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 • Reply to article
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (2)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Related article
 •Related letter
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Complementary and Alternative Medicine
 •Pain
 •Prognosis/ Outcomes
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Delicious Add to Digg Add to Facebook Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

COMMENTS AND OPINIONS
Acupuncture Research: Placebos by Many Other Names—Reply

Daniel C. Cherkin, PhD; Karen J. Sherman, PhD, MPH

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

In reply

Our trial was designed to determine if adjunctive acupuncture needling was more effective than usual care alone for chronic back pain and if acupuncture involving needle insertion was more effective than simulated (noninsertive) acupuncture in clinically relevant acupuncture points.1 We found that insertive and noninsertive acupuncture had similar effects that were superior to usual care alone. We concluded that "it remains unclear whether acupuncture or our simulated method of acupuncture provide physiologically important stimulation or represent placebo or nonspecific effects."1(p858)

The 2 letters reflect starkly different views. Costi and colleagues argue that our results were not surprising because our noninsertive needling treatment "preserved the painful and mechanical stimuli" of a bona fide acupuncture treatment. In contrast, Bausell and O’Connell suggest that any benefits of acupuncture (whether real, simulated, or sham) are placebo effects. Both may be right—or wrong. Because . . . [Full Text of this Article]


AUTHOR INFORMATION


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLE

A Randomized Trial Comparing Acupuncture, Simulated Acupuncture, and Usual Care for Chronic Low Back Pain
Daniel C. Cherkin, Karen J. Sherman, Andrew L. Avins, Janet H. Erro, Laura Ichikawa, William E. Barlow, Kristin Delaney, Rene Hawkes, Luisa Hamilton, Alice Pressman, Partap S. Khalsa, and Richard A. Deyo
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(9):858-866.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

RELATED LETTER

Acupuncture Research: Placebos by Many Other Names
Barker Bausell and Neil Edward O’Connell
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1812-1813.
EXTRACT | FULL TEXT  


THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

Double blinding with a new placebo needle: a further validation study
Takakura et al.
Acupuncture in Medicine 2010;28:144-148.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | PHYSICIAN JOBS | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2009 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.