acupuncture has been particularly popular recently and its interest was bolstered by a recent cochrane review suggesting it might help with tension type headaches. however, this review had a number of statistical problems with it.
my big problem with the paper, though, was that the reported benefit was largely driven by one trial. this 2007 study examined traditional acupuncture against “sham” acupuncture where needles were inserted in random locations.
advertisement
how can the response rate be so spectacularly high? it’s worth noting a quote from another study by the same research group. in that study, on low-back pain , the authors stated: “effectiveness of acupuncture, either verum (true) or sham, was almost twice that of conventional therapy.”
a number of placebo techniques have been tried. for example, needles can be inserted into the patient randomly or only superficially. there are also special retractable needles that pop back into the shaft of the device after piercing the skin. however, patients who’ve undergone acupuncture know what the traditional procedure is supposed to feel like, and where the needles are supposed to go. at the same time, the practitioners obviously know whether they are using real needles or inserting them differently, and their behaviour often clues in the patients as well.
advertisement
not surprisingly, this has led to the finding that much of the effect of acupuncture is guided by the acupuncturist’s style and bedside manner more than anything else.
for one thing, acupuncture is not entirely risk-free. complications like infections and punctured lungs have been reported, as edzard ernst details in his 2011 paper in pain.