While acupuncture is under attack as un-scientific, 46% of a list of about 2500 conventional treatments are likely to be ineffective or harmful and are not supported by Evidence Based Medicine
11/05/09 14:50
This is taken from Clinical Evidence http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/index.jsp the international source of the best available evidence on the effects of common clinical interventions. (Clinical Evidence is owned by the respected British Medical Journal
"Clinical Evidence aims to help people make informed decisions about which treatments to use. It can also show where more research is needed. For clinicians and patients we wish to highlight treatments that work and for which the benefits outweigh the harms, especially those treatments that may currently be underused. We also wish to highlight treatments that do not work or for which the harms outweigh the benefits. For the research community our intention is to highlight gaps in the evidence, where there are currently no good RCTs or no RCTs that look at groups of people or at important patient outcomes.
So what can Clinical Evidence tell us about the state of our current knowledge? What proportion of commonly used treatments are supported by good evidence, what proportion should not be used or used only with caution, and how big are the gaps in our knowledge? Of around 2500 treatments covered 13% are rated as beneficial, 23% likely to be beneficial, 8% as trade off between benefits and harms, 6% unlikely to be beneficial, 4% likely to be ineffective or harmful, and 46%, the largest proportion, as unknown effectiveness (see figure 1). Dividing treatments into categories is never easy hence our reliance on our large team of experienced information specialists, editors, peer reviewers and expert authors. Categorisation always involves a degree of subjective judgement and is sometimes controversial. We do it because users tell us it is helpful, but judged by its own rules the categorisation is certainly of unknown effectiveness and may well have trade offs between benefits and harms. However, the figures above suggest that the research community has a large task ahead and that most decisions about treatments still rest on the individual judgements of clinicians and patients."
Double standards are often used by opponents of acupuncture and other complementary therapies to "prove" that all complementary medicines are at best just a placebo
With articles in newspapers, dedicated websites and blogs, radio talks and television appearances, they are increasingly vocals and aggressive in their condemnation of all complementary medicines.
To back up their claim, they select carefully a few scientific papers that appears to go along with their assertion, while ignoring the vast number of good clinical research that support the use of acupuncture and other alternative treatments
The above little excerpt from a well respected organization show that all is not well proven in the field of conventional medicine, anymore that it is in many other treatment modalities.
The purpose of this website is to inform the public about the benefits of acupuncture, the conditions that can be treated, and the scientific and clinical evidence that is available today.
"Clinical Evidence aims to help people make informed decisions about which treatments to use. It can also show where more research is needed. For clinicians and patients we wish to highlight treatments that work and for which the benefits outweigh the harms, especially those treatments that may currently be underused. We also wish to highlight treatments that do not work or for which the harms outweigh the benefits. For the research community our intention is to highlight gaps in the evidence, where there are currently no good RCTs or no RCTs that look at groups of people or at important patient outcomes.
So what can Clinical Evidence tell us about the state of our current knowledge? What proportion of commonly used treatments are supported by good evidence, what proportion should not be used or used only with caution, and how big are the gaps in our knowledge? Of around 2500 treatments covered 13% are rated as beneficial, 23% likely to be beneficial, 8% as trade off between benefits and harms, 6% unlikely to be beneficial, 4% likely to be ineffective or harmful, and 46%, the largest proportion, as unknown effectiveness (see figure 1). Dividing treatments into categories is never easy hence our reliance on our large team of experienced information specialists, editors, peer reviewers and expert authors. Categorisation always involves a degree of subjective judgement and is sometimes controversial. We do it because users tell us it is helpful, but judged by its own rules the categorisation is certainly of unknown effectiveness and may well have trade offs between benefits and harms. However, the figures above suggest that the research community has a large task ahead and that most decisions about treatments still rest on the individual judgements of clinicians and patients."
Double standards are often used by opponents of acupuncture and other complementary therapies to "prove" that all complementary medicines are at best just a placebo
With articles in newspapers, dedicated websites and blogs, radio talks and television appearances, they are increasingly vocals and aggressive in their condemnation of all complementary medicines.
To back up their claim, they select carefully a few scientific papers that appears to go along with their assertion, while ignoring the vast number of good clinical research that support the use of acupuncture and other alternative treatments
The above little excerpt from a well respected organization show that all is not well proven in the field of conventional medicine, anymore that it is in many other treatment modalities.
The purpose of this website is to inform the public about the benefits of acupuncture, the conditions that can be treated, and the scientific and clinical evidence that is available today.