Jump to content

German acupuncture trials: Difference between revisions

Edit links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
m clean up using AWB
Mallexikon (talk | contribs)
2,929 edits
adding RS material about results. Improving flow
Line 7: Line 7:
The '''German Acupuncture Trials''' ({{lang-de|GERAC-Studien<ref name=dmw1>{{cite journal |doi=10.1055/s-2005-870855 |title=Akupunktur: Was zeigen die gerac-Studien? |trans_title=Acupuncture: What of the GERAC studies? |language=German |year=2005 |last1=Wenzel |first1=K.-W |journal=Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift |volume=130 |issue=24 |pages=1520}}</ref>}}) are a series of nationwide [[acupuncture]] trials set up in 2001 and published in 2006, on behalf of several [[Health in Germany#Health care insurance today|German statutory health insurance companies]].<ref name="spiegelacupuncture">{{cite news |first=Veronika |last=Hackenbroch |title=Die eingebildete Heilung |trans_title=The Imaginary Healing |url=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-32565481.html |work=[[Der Spiegel]] |language=German |date=2004-10-25}}</ref> They consist of one observational study on acupuncture side effects, and four [[randomized controlled trials]] (RCTs) - investigating acupuncture treatment for [[low back pain]], knee [[osteoarthritis]], [[migraine]] prophylaxis, and [[tension-type headache]]. The trials are considered to be one of the largest clinical studies in the field of acupuncture.<ref name="spiegelacupuncture"/>
The '''German Acupuncture Trials''' ({{lang-de|GERAC-Studien<ref name=dmw1>{{cite journal |doi=10.1055/s-2005-870855 |title=Akupunktur: Was zeigen die gerac-Studien? |trans_title=Acupuncture: What of the GERAC studies? |language=German |year=2005 |last1=Wenzel |first1=K.-W |journal=Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift |volume=130 |issue=24 |pages=1520}}</ref>}}) are a series of nationwide [[acupuncture]] trials set up in 2001 and published in 2006, on behalf of several [[Health in Germany#Health care insurance today|German statutory health insurance companies]].<ref name="spiegelacupuncture">{{cite news |first=Veronika |last=Hackenbroch |title=Die eingebildete Heilung |trans_title=The Imaginary Healing |url=http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-32565481.html |work=[[Der Spiegel]] |language=German |date=2004-10-25}}</ref> They consist of one observational study on acupuncture side effects, and four [[randomized controlled trials]] (RCTs) - investigating acupuncture treatment for [[low back pain]], knee [[osteoarthritis]], [[migraine]] prophylaxis, and [[tension-type headache]]. The trials are considered to be one of the largest clinical studies in the field of acupuncture.<ref name="spiegelacupuncture"/>


The observational study revealed [[adverse events]] occurring in 7.5% of all acupuncture patients. While the trial for tension-type headache had to be aborted, the other three RCTs had the same results.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> The results of the trials showed there was no difference in efficiency of real and sham acupuncture.<ref name="Howick2011">{{cite book |first=Jeremy H. |last=Howick |title=The Philosophy of Evidence-based Medicine |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=O8djbHBva5IC&pg=PA92 |year=2011 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9781444342666 |pages=92–4}}</ref> Subsequent assessment of the trials judged that since they did not include a well-designed placebo, they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings.<ref name="Howick2011"/>
The observational study revealed [[adverse events]] occurring in 7.5% of all acupuncture patients. While the trial for tension-type headache had to be aborted, the other three RCTs had the same results: acupuncture was reported to work as well as or even better than conventional therapy,<ref>"The decision was determined by the findings of the studies that acupuncture therapy in these cases showed significant advantages compared to „standard therapy“. Whether the specific selection of acupuncture points according to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) had any influence on these findings remained unclear but did not lead to a negative vote of the G-BA." As seen at: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 2</ref> but that there was no difference in efficiency of true acupuncture and sham.<ref name="Howick2011">{{cite book|author=Jeremy H. Howick|title=The Philosophy of Evidence-based Medicine|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=O8djbHBva5IC&pg=PA92|date=23 February 2011|publisher=John Wiley & Sons|isbn=978-1-4443-4266-6|pages=92-94}}</ref> Subsequent assessment of the trials judged that since the sham acupuncture was not a well-designed placebo, they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings.<ref name="Howick2011"/>


As a result of the GERAC trials, the [[Federal Joint Committee (Germany)|German Federal Joint Committee]] ruled in April 2006 that the costs of acupunctural treatment for chronic [[back pain]] and knee [[osteoarthritis]] will be covered by [[Publicly funded health care|public health insurers]] in Germany.<ref name="Karin Hertzer">{{cite news |first=Karin |last=Hertzer |title=Akupunktur ist wirksam |trans_title=Acupuncture is effective |url=http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/gesundleben/alternativmedizin/chinamedizin/akupunktur/aktuelle-studie_aid_19882.html |work=[[Focus (German magazine)|Focus]] |language=de |date=2009-08-12}}</ref>
As a result of the GERAC trials, the [[Federal Joint Committee (Germany)|German Federal Joint Committee]] ruled in April 2006 that the costs of acupunctural treatment for chronic [[back pain]] and knee [[osteoarthritis]] will be covered by [[Publicly funded health care|public health insurers]] in Germany.<ref name="Karin Hertzer">{{cite news |first=Karin |last=Hertzer |title=Akupunktur ist wirksam |trans_title=Acupuncture is effective |url=http://www.focus.de/gesundheit/gesundleben/alternativmedizin/chinamedizin/akupunktur/aktuelle-studie_aid_19882.html |work=[[Focus (German magazine)|Focus]] |language=de |date=2009-08-12}}</ref>
Line 36: Line 36:
Beginning in 2001, the trials were carried out by the following universities: [[Heidelberg University]], the [[University of Marburg]], the [[University of Mainz]] and the [[Ruhr University Bochum]]. The trials were for the following conditions:
Beginning in 2001, the trials were carried out by the following universities: [[Heidelberg University]], the [[University of Marburg]], the [[University of Mainz]] and the [[Ruhr University Bochum]]. The trials were for the following conditions:


*'''Low back pain trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; 1162 patients were randomized in this trial.<ref name="shenker">{{cite journal|doi=10.1093/rheumatology/ken161|title=Demystifying acupuncture|year=2008|last1=Pyne|first1=D.|last2=Shenker|first2=N. G.|journal=Rheumatology|volume=47|issue=8|pages=1132–6|pmid=18460551}}</ref> The treatment given in the standard therapy group consisted of a combination of [[physical therapy]] and [[NSAID]] medication.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" />
*'''Low back pain trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; 1162 patients were randomized in this trial.<ref name="shenker">{{cite journal|doi=10.1093/rheumatology/ken161|title=Demystifying acupuncture|year=2008|last1=Pyne|first1=D.|last2=Shenker|first2=N. G.|journal=Rheumatology|volume=47|issue=8|pages=1132–6|pmid=18460551}}</ref> The treatment given in the standard therapy group consisted of a combination of [[physical therapy]] and [[NSAID]] medication.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> The response rates found for both true acupuncture and sham were 47.6, 44.2 and 27.4%, respectively.<ref name="shenker">{{cite journal|last=Pyne|first=D.|coauthors=Shenker, N. G.|title=Demystifying acupuncture|journal=''[[Rheumatology (journal)]]''|date=29 April 2008|volume=47|issue=8|pages=1132–1136|doi=10.1093/rheumatology/ken161|url=http://rheumatology.oxfordjournals.org/content/47/8/1132.full|quote=In the GERAC back pain study, 1162 patients with chronic low back pain were randomized. The studies found the effectiveness of acupuncture to be almost twice that of standard therapy with 6-month response rates being 47.6, 44.2 and 27.4% for true acupuncture, sham and standard groups, respectively}}</ref> True acupuncture and sham were significantly more effective than standard therapy; however, there was no statistical significant difference between the effectiveness of true and sham acupuncture.<ref>Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, pp. 309-310</ref>

*'''Knee osteoarthritis trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; A total of 1039 patients were randomized in this study.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006">{{cite journal |doi=10.7326/0003-4819-145-1-200607040-00005 |last1=Scharf |first1=Hanns-Peter |last2=Mansmann |first2=Ulrich |last3=Streitberger |first3=Konrad |last4=Witte |first4=Steffen |last5=Krämer |first5=Jürgen |last6=Maier |first6=Christoph |last7=Trampisch |first7=Hans-Joachim |last8=Victor |first8=Norbert |displayauthors= 4 |title=Acupuncture and knee osteoarthritis: A three-armed randomized trial |journal=Annals of Internal Medicine |volume=145 |issue=1 |pages=12–20 |year=2006 |pmid=16818924}}</ref> Treatment in the standard therapy group consisted of [[diclofenac]] or [[rofecoxib]] medication on an as-needed basis.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006"/> Patients in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups were also allowed additional medication with diclofenac (as needed), but limited to a small amount (i.e., a total of 1g between week 2 and 23).<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006"/> Patients in all three groups could attend six physiotherapy sessions.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006"/>
*'''Knee osteoarthritis trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; A total of 1039 patients were randomized in this study.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006">{{cite journal |doi=10.7326/0003-4819-145-1-200607040-00005 |last1=Scharf |first1=Hanns-Peter |last2=Mansmann |first2=Ulrich |last3=Streitberger |first3=Konrad |last4=Witte |first4=Steffen |last5=Krämer |first5=Jürgen |last6=Maier |first6=Christoph |last7=Trampisch |first7=Hans-Joachim |last8=Victor |first8=Norbert |displayauthors= 4 |title=Acupuncture and knee osteoarthritis: A three-armed randomized trial |journal=Annals of Internal Medicine |volume=145 |issue=1 |pages=12–20 |year=2006 |pmid=16818924}}</ref> Treatment in the standard therapy group consisted of [[diclofenac]] or [[rofecoxib]] medication on an as-needed basis.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006"/> Patients in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups were also allowed additional medication with diclofenac (as needed), but limited to a small amount (i.e., a total of 1g between week 2 and 23).<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006"/> Patients in all three groups could attend six physiotherapy sessions.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /><ref name="Scharf et al. 2006"/> In the end, observed success rates were 53.1% for the acupuncture group, 51.0% for the sham acupuncture group, and 29.1% for the standard therapy group; this amounted to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between true and sham acupuncture.<ref name=mao1>{{cite journal|last=Mao|first=Jun J.|coauthors=Kapur, Rahul|title=Acupuncture in Primary Care|journal=''Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice''|date=2010 Mar|year=2010|month=March|volume=37|issue=1|pages=105–117|doi=10.1016/j.pop.2009.09.010|pmid=20189001|url=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2830903/|accessdate=26 November 2013|quote=The GERAC trials were being conducted to compare acupuncture to sham acupuncture and guideline-oriented standard therapy. Unlike ARTs though, GERAC found very little difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. In results published by Scharf et al. in 2006, the success rates (defined as a 36% improvement in WOMAC scores at 13 and 26 weeks) were 53.1% for acupuncture, 51.0% for sham acupuncture, and 29.1% for standard therapy. Both acupuncture and sham acupuncture were significantly better than standard therapy.}}</ref>
⚫
*'''Migraine prophylaxis trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> Primary outcome was defined as reduction in migraine days in week 21 to 25 after randomization.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> Treatment for the standard group consisted of medication according to the 2005 therapy guidelines issued by the German Neurological Association, usually comprising a [[beta-blocker]].<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" />

⚫
*'''Tension-type headache trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; The standard, guideline-based therapy arm for the RCT for chronic [[tension type headache]] provided for [[amitryptiline]] medication.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> Since only a few patients were willing to take this antidepressant, the standard therapy arm had to be aborted.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> In the two remaining arms (real against sham acupuncture), 405 patients were included altogether.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss">{{cite book |url=http://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-487/2007-09-27-Abschluss-Akupunktur.pdf |title=Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses 'Ärztliche Behandlung' des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis |trans_title=Summary report of the subcommittee 'Medical treatment' of the Federal Joint Committee on the assessment pursuant to § 135 SGB V, Section 1 of the body acupuncture with needles without electrical stimulation for chronic headache, chronic lumbar pain, chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis |author=Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss |date=2007-09-27 |accessdate=2013-11-30 |language=de|pages=1–527}}</ref>
⚫
*'''Migraine prophylaxis trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> Primary outcome was defined as reduction in migraine days in week 21 to 25 after randomization.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> Treatment for the standard group consisted of medication according to the 2005 therapy guidelines issued by the German Neurological Association, usually comprising a [[beta-blocker]].<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> Regarding efficacy, no statistically significant difference between the groups was observed.<ref>Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 474</ref>

⚫
*'''Tension-type headache trial'''&nbsp;&ndash; The standard, guideline-based therapy arm for the RCT for chronic [[tension type headache]] provided for [[amitryptiline]] medication.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> Since only a few patients were willing to take this antidepressant, the standard therapy arm had to be aborted.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss" /> In the two remaining arms (real against sham acupuncture), 405 patients were included altogether.<ref name="GemeinsamerBundesausschuss">{{cite book |url=http://www.g-ba.de/downloads/40-268-487/2007-09-27-Abschluss-Akupunktur.pdf |title=Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses 'Ärztliche Behandlung' des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis |trans_title=Summary report of the subcommittee 'Medical treatment' of the Federal Joint Committee on the assessment pursuant to § 135 SGB V, Section 1 of the body acupuncture with needles without electrical stimulation for chronic headache, chronic lumbar pain, chronic pain associated with osteoarthritis |author=Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss |date=2007-09-27 |accessdate=2013-11-30 |language=de|pages=1–527}}</ref> No significant difference in efficacy was observed between true acupuncture and sham.<ref>Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 436</ref>

*'''Observational study'''&nbsp;&ndash; 12,617 physicians took part in the observational study, reporting on [[adverse events]] during or after acupuncture therapies they performed between 2001 and 2005.<ref name="da1"/> This resulted in data of roughly 2.6 million patients, out of which a random sample of 190,924 was reviewed in terms of frequency of adverse events and [[serious adverse event]]s.<ref name="da1"/>
*'''Observational study'''&nbsp;&ndash; 12,617 physicians took part in the observational study, reporting on [[adverse events]] during or after acupuncture therapies they performed between 2001 and 2005.<ref name="da1"/> This resulted in data of roughly 2.6 million patients, out of which a random sample of 190,924 was reviewed in terms of frequency of adverse events and [[serious adverse event]]s.<ref name="da1"/>


Revision as of 04:09, 1 December 2013

Needles being inserted into a patient's forearm.

The German Acupuncture Trials (German: GERAC-Studien[1]) are a series of nationwide acupuncture trials set up in 2001 and published in 2006, on behalf of several German statutory health insurance companies.[2] They consist of one observational study on acupuncture side effects, and four randomized controlled trials (RCTs) - investigating acupuncture treatment for low back pain, knee osteoarthritis, migraine prophylaxis, and tension-type headache. The trials are considered to be one of the largest clinical studies in the field of acupuncture.[2]

The observational study revealed adverse events occurring in 7.5% of all acupuncture patients. While the trial for tension-type headache had to be aborted, the other three RCTs had the same results: acupuncture was reported to work as well as or even better than conventional therapy,[3] but that there was no difference in efficiency of true acupuncture and sham.[4] Subsequent assessment of the trials judged that since the sham acupuncture was not a well-designed placebo, they were unlikely to have emitted clinically significant findings.[4]

As a result of the GERAC trials, the German Federal Joint Committee ruled in April 2006 that the costs of acupunctural treatment for chronic back pain and knee osteoarthritis will be covered by public health insurers in Germany.[5]

According to Schweizer Fernsehen, the total cost of the trials amounted to 7.5 million Euros.[6] Several years after the Committee's decision to incorporate acupunctural treatment into the healthcare of Germany was passed into law, the number of regular users of acupuncture in the country eventually surpassed one million.[7]

History

In the late 1990s, German healthcare regulators began to voice their doubts over the therapeutical usage of acupuncture, mostly due to the lack of reliable evidence regarding its therapeutic efficacy.[8] This resulted in a heated debate, which led to Paul Rheinberger, Director of the Federal Committee of Physicians and Health Insurers, making the following statement: "The higher the quality of clinical studies performed on acupuncture, the lesser the amount of evidence supporting its efficacy."[9][10]

In October 2000, the Federal Committee of Physicians and Health Insurers decided that acupunctural treatment may not be reimbursed by statutory health insurance companies except within the framework of experimental field studies.[11][12][13]

Subsequently, in 2001 the GERAC were set up at Bochum University[11] as a field study on behalf of six German statutory health insurance organizations.[2][13]

Overview

All RCTs were designed as three-armed trials, with the three parallel groups in each trial receiving either verum (real) acupuncture treatment, sham acupuncture treatment, or guideline-based conventional treatment.[2] The number of patients randomized was one of the largest ever for acupuncture trials.[2][13]

Only registered physicians with an additional license for acupuncture and at least two years of clinical experience in acupuncture treatment qualified as performing acupuncturists.[13] In order to acquaint them with the study-specific standards of acupuncture, sham acupuncture and conventional therapy, the performing physicians received a one-day training.[13]

The acupuncture point selection was partially predetermined.[13] Needles were to be manipulated until arrival of de-qi sensation.[13]

For sham acupuncture, needles were inserted only superficially (3 mm at most), and at bogus points; there also was no subsequent manipulation.[13] Thus, only the patients (not the performing acupuncturists) could be blinded.[13] Assessment regarding the therapy's efficacy was undertaken by blinded interviewers.[13]

Individual trials

The Ruhr University Bochum

Beginning in 2001, the trials were carried out by the following universities: Heidelberg University, the University of Marburg, the University of Mainz and the Ruhr University Bochum. The trials were for the following conditions:

  • Low back pain trial – 1162 patients were randomized in this trial.[14] The treatment given in the standard therapy group consisted of a combination of physical therapy and NSAID medication.[11] The response rates found for both true acupuncture and sham were 47.6, 44.2 and 27.4%, respectively.[14] True acupuncture and sham were significantly more effective than standard therapy; however, there was no statistical significant difference between the effectiveness of true and sham acupuncture.[15]
  • Knee osteoarthritis trial – A total of 1039 patients were randomized in this study.[11][16] Treatment in the standard therapy group consisted of diclofenac or rofecoxib medication on an as-needed basis.[11][16] Patients in the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups were also allowed additional medication with diclofenac (as needed), but limited to a small amount (i.e., a total of 1g between week 2 and 23).[11][16] Patients in all three groups could attend six physiotherapy sessions.[11][16] In the end, observed success rates were 53.1% for the acupuncture group, 51.0% for the sham acupuncture group, and 29.1% for the standard therapy group; this amounted to significant superiority of acupuncture and sham acupuncture over standard treatment, but no statistical significant efficacy difference between true and sham acupuncture.[17]
  • Migraine prophylaxis trial – In this trial, a total of 960 patients was randomized; immediately after randomization, however, 125 patients (almost all of them from the standard group) withdrew from the study.[11] Primary outcome was defined as reduction in migraine days in week 21 to 25 after randomization.[11] Treatment for the standard group consisted of medication according to the 2005 therapy guidelines issued by the German Neurological Association, usually comprising a beta-blocker.[11] Regarding efficacy, no statistically significant difference between the groups was observed.[18]
  • Tension-type headache trial – The standard, guideline-based therapy arm for the RCT for chronic tension type headache provided for amitryptiline medication.[11] Since only a few patients were willing to take this antidepressant, the standard therapy arm had to be aborted.[11] In the two remaining arms (real against sham acupuncture), 405 patients were included altogether.[11] No significant difference in efficacy was observed between true acupuncture and sham.[19]
  • Observational study – 12,617 physicians took part in the observational study, reporting on adverse events during or after acupuncture therapies they performed between 2001 and 2005.[13] This resulted in data of roughly 2.6 million patients, out of which a random sample of 190,924 was reviewed in terms of frequency of adverse events and serious adverse events.[13]

Domestic consequences

Media

The trials resulted in increased coverage of acupuncture in the German media.[20] According to the news broadcaster Deutschlandfunk, the GERAC trials were considered to be the world's largest set of clinical studies on acupuncture.[21] An article in Die Welt said that the results of the studies were "promising".[22] Der Spiegel said that the results of GERAC couldn't be brushed aside by the Federal Joint Committee anymore.[2]

Decision of German healthcare regulators

As a result of the GERAC trials, the German Federal Joint Committee (Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss) recognized acupunctural treatment as a therepautical option to be reimbursed by public health insurance in Germany, specifically for the treatment of low back pain and knee pain.[5] On April 18, 2006, the Committee explained its decision.[23] During the 16th legislative session of the Bundestag in July 2006, the German federal government announced that it will not object to the committee's decision. On July 3, 2006, The German Health Minister Ulla Schmidt confirmed the inclusion of acupunctural treatment for specific conditions as part of healthcare in Germany.[24]

Usage of acupuncture

After the committee's decision to incorporate acupuncture into the healthcare of Germany was passed into law, health insurers reported that the number of users of acupuncture in the country increased, finding favour especially among women; in 2012 there were around one million estimated users.[7] In 2006, German researchers published the results of one of the first, largest controlled randomized clinical trials which indicated that there was no difference between acupoints and non-acupoints.[25] As a result of the trial's conclusions, some insurance corporations in Germany no longer reimbursed acupuncture.[25] It also had an adverse impact on acupuncture in the international community.[25]

International reception

Media

ABC News reported that the study "highlights the superiority of acupuncture", but also introduces uncertainty about the specific mechanisms of treatment.[26] Heinz Endres, one of the authors of the study, told the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that "acupuncture has not yet been recommended as a routine therapy", but "we think this will change with our study".[27] The BBC stated that the study "echoes the findings of two studies published last year in the British Medical Journal, which found a short course of acupuncture could benefit patients with low back pain".[28] Nigel Hawkes, health editor of The Times, wrote that the trials "suggest that both acupuncture and sham acupuncture act as powerful versions of the placebo effect."[29]

Academic community

In September 2007, NHS Choices commented on the news surrounding the study and said that "this trial seems to support the role of acupuncture as an effective alternative therapy for chronic lower back pain" but that "it will be important to try to tease apart the real treatment effects from those that occur through the placebo effect".[30] As of 2012 The guidance within the UK National Health Service is that "there is little or no scientific evidence that acupuncture works for many of the conditions for which it is often used", and its use is only supported for lower back pain.[31]

The trials found no significant differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture.[4]

Edzard Ernst, a professor of complementary medicine at the University of Exeter, noted that the studies had attracted criticism for not taking into account the risk of patient de-blinding, and that they "[failed] to conclusively answer the question whether acupuncture helps patients through a specific or a nonspecific effect".[32]

On June 8, 2005, the Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (German Medical Weekly) published an article which criticized the trials for "not meeting scientific criteria".[1]

See also

References

  1. ^ a b Wenzel, K.-W (2005). "Akupunktur: Was zeigen die gerac-Studien?". Deutsche Medizinische Wochenschrift (in German). 130 (24): 1520. doi:10.1055/s-2005-870855. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ a b c d e f Hackenbroch, Veronika (2004-10-25). "Die eingebildete Heilung". Der Spiegel (in German). {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help) Cite error: The named reference "spiegelacupuncture" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  3. ^ "The decision was determined by the findings of the studies that acupuncture therapy in these cases showed significant advantages compared to „standard therapy“. Whether the specific selection of acupuncture points according to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) had any influence on these findings remained unclear but did not lead to a negative vote of the G-BA." As seen at: Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 2
  4. ^ a b c Jeremy H. Howick (23 February 2011). The Philosophy of Evidence-based Medicine. John Wiley & Sons. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-1-4443-4266-6. Cite error: The named reference "Howick2011" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  5. ^ a b Hertzer, Karin (2009-08-12). "Akupunktur ist wirksam". Focus (in German). {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ "Akupunktur". Schweizer Fernsehen. 2003-03-10. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ a b "Frauen häufiger mit Akupunktur behandelt". Rheinische Post (in German). 2012-08-30. Retrieved 2013-05-23. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  8. ^ Singh, Simon; Ernst, Edzard (2008). Trick Or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine (1st American ed.). New York: W.W. Norton. pp. 81–2. ISBN 9780393066616.
  9. ^ Korzilius, Heike (2000). "Bundesausschuss: Streit um Akupunktur" (PDF). Deutsches Ärzteblatt (in German). 97 (30): A-2013–4. Retrieved 2013-11-26.
  10. ^ Suess, Jochen; Scharl, Anton (2004). "Lässt sich die Wirksamkeit der Akupunktur naturwissenschaftlich erklären?". Die Hebamme. 17 (4): 214–7. doi:10.1055/s-2004-860883.
  11. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss (2007-09-27). Zusammenfassender Bericht des Unterausschusses 'Ärztliche Behandlung' des Gemeinsamen Bundesausschusses über die Bewertung gemäß §135 Abs.1 SGB V der Körperakupunktur mit Nadeln ohne elektrische Stimulation bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen, chronischen LWS-Schmerzen, chronischen Schmerzen bei Osteoarthritis (PDF) (in German). pp. 1–527. Retrieved 2013-11-30. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  12. ^ Cummings, M. (2009). "Modellvorhaben Akupunktur - a summary of the ART, ARC and GERAC trials". Acupuncture in Medicine. 27 (1): 26–30. doi:10.1136/aim.2008.000281. PMID 19369191.
  13. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l Endres, Heinz G.; Diener, Hans-Christoph; Maier, Christoph; Böwing, Gabriele; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Zenz, Michael (2007). "Akupunktur bei chronischen Kopfschmerzen". Deutsches Ärzteblatt (in German). 104 (3): A-114, B-105, C-101. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |trans_title= ignored (|trans-title= suggested) (help)
  14. ^ a b Pyne, D.; Shenker, N. G. (2008). "Demystifying acupuncture". Rheumatology. 47 (8): 1132–6. doi:10.1093/rheumatology/ken161. PMID 18460551. Cite error: The named reference "shenker" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  15. ^ Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, pp. 309-310
  16. ^ a b c d Scharf, Hanns-Peter; Mansmann, Ulrich; Streitberger, Konrad; Witte, Steffen; Krämer, Jürgen; Maier, Christoph; Trampisch, Hans-Joachim; Victor, Norbert (2006). "Acupuncture and knee osteoarthritis: A three-armed randomized trial". Annals of Internal Medicine. 145 (1): 12–20. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-145-1-200607040-00005. PMID 16818924. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  17. ^ Mao, Jun J. (2010 Mar). "Acupuncture in Primary Care". Primary Care: Clinics in Office Practice. 37 (1): 105–117. doi:10.1016/j.pop.2009.09.010. PMID 20189001. Retrieved 26 November 2013. The GERAC trials were being conducted to compare acupuncture to sham acupuncture and guideline-oriented standard therapy. Unlike ARTs though, GERAC found very little difference between acupuncture and sham acupuncture. In results published by Scharf et al. in 2006, the success rates (defined as a 36% improvement in WOMAC scores at 13 and 26 weeks) were 53.1% for acupuncture, 51.0% for sham acupuncture, and 29.1% for standard therapy. Both acupuncture and sham acupuncture were significantly better than standard therapy. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help); Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |journal= (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link)
  18. ^ Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 474
  19. ^ Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss 2007, p. 436
  20. ^ "Akupunktur bei Migräne - nicht besser als ein Placebo?" (in German). de:Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften. Retrieved 2013-11-26.
  21. ^ Vorsatz, William (2007-11-13). "Bestechendes Argument" (in German). Deutschlandfunk.
  22. ^ "Studie belegt: Akupunktur hilft bei chronischen Schmerzen" (in German). Die Welt. 2007-01-17. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  23. ^ "Tragende Gründe zum Beschluss des Gemeinsamen Bundesau sschusses zur Akupunktur" (PDF) (in German). Federal Joint Committee (Germany). 2006-04-18.
  24. ^ "Akupunktur wird Leistung der gesetzlichen Krankenkassen". Federal Ministry of Health (Germany). 2006-07-03.
  25. ^ a b c He, W.; Tong, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Zhang, L.; Ben, H.; Qin, Q.; Huang, F.; Rong, P. (2013). "Review of controlled clinical trials on acupuncture versus sham acupuncture in Germany". Journal of traditional Chinese medicine. 33 (3): 403–7. PMID 24024341. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |displayauthors= ignored (|display-authors= suggested) (help)
  26. ^ Williams, Carla (2007-09-24). "Fake or not, acupuncture helps back pain". ABC News. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
  27. ^ "Acupuncture more effective than conventional treatments for back pain: Study". Canadian Broadcasting Corporation. 2007-09-27.
  28. ^ "Needles 'are best for back pain'". BBC. 2007-09-25. Retrieved 2013-11-25.
  29. ^ Hawkes, Nigel (2007-09-25). "Sticking needles in a bad back 'eases pain better than drugs'". The Times. Retrieved 2013-11-25. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
  30. ^ "Acupuncture may ease back pain". NHS Choices. 26 September 2007. Retrieved November 2013. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  31. ^ "Acupuncture". NHS Choices. 2012-05-22. Retrieved 2013-11. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
  32. ^ Ernst, E. (2006). "Acupuncture - a critical analysis". Journal of Internal Medicine. 259 (2): 125–37. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2796.2005.01584.x. PMID 16420542.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=German_acupuncture_trials&oldid=584006100"