shoo
Mar 22, 2009, 1:08 AM
Views: 4533
Registered: Dec 22, 2006
Posts: 1501
|
As a researcher in health economics, part of my job is to rip apart clinical studies and determine whether the claims the authors make can actually be backed up by the study methodology and data. This tends to be especially true of psuedo-scientific herbal, electronic, magnetic, and home remedies. I wouldn't be surprised if this cold laser stuff fell into the same category.
Part of the problem with acupuncture studies (and yes, I've read through a few), is that you can't effectively blind the patient or the clinicians, and therefore cannot effectively test against a placebo. The only honest attempt I've ever seen to do so is using "sham acupuncture," or sticking needles in random places instead of traditional acupuncture spots. If I remember correctly, the patients did not have a statistically different pain relief level in either group. However, you can very easily make the argument that this isn't really a blinding process either, and that the "true" mechanism of action (if there is one) is identical for random vs traditional needle placement. The treatment effect in this study was essentially for traditional vs random needle placement, rather than for acupuncture as a whole.
In short, bring me your trial, and I promise it's BS.
Edited for clarity.
(This post was edited by shoo on Mar 22, 2009, 1:09 AM)
|
