To be, or not to be: The calculated politics of acupuncture in JAMA.
10.1007/s11655-017-2787-2
- Author:
Chang-Zhen GONG
1
;
Wei LIU
2
Author Information
1. American Academy of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, Roseville, MN, 55113, USA. tcmhealth@aol.com.
2. American Academy of Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, Roseville, MN, 55113, USA.
- Publication Type:Journal Article
- Keywords:
Chinese medicine;
Western medical journals;
acupuncture;
study design
- From:
Chinese journal of integrative medicine
2017;23(11):803-808
- CountryChina
- Language:English
-
Abstract:
Ten acupuncture-related articles were published in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) between 1998 and 2017. Five studies showed positive results in terms of the effectiveness of acupuncture/Chinese medicine (CM); five studies showed negative results. This article summarizes the acupuncturerelated clinical trials published over the last 20 years in JAMA, and addresses what seems to be a fundamental ambivalence in Western medical journals regarding the scientific validity of acupuncture/CM. As yet there has been no consensus on the role of acupuncture in healthcare in Western countries. This is hardly surprising, considering the conflicting evidence found in published studies. Skepticism regarding acupuncture/CM is largely grounded in the fact that an accurate model for assessing the true clinical effects of acupuncture has yet to be created. This article discusses some of the pitfalls which result from applying Western-based scientific principles to CM, and suggests that in many cases, "negative" studies have been misinterpreted. The clinical experience of acupuncture practitioners is often in direct conflict with many of the negative conclusions published in journals. We are in need of an accurate model for sham and placebo treatments, and must analyze all published studies for design flaws and faulty conclusions.
