Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

The Diabetes Educator

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
Evaluation & the Health Professions
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Scopus
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by O'Connell, N. E.
Right arrow Articles by Goldacre, B.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by O'Connell, N. E.
Right arrow Articles by Goldacre, B.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Interpretive Bias in Acupuncture Research?

A Case Study

Neil E. O'Connell

Centre for Research in Rehabilitation, School of Health Sciences and Social Care, Brunel University, West London, United Kingdom, neil.oconnell{at}brunel.ac.uk

Benedict M. Wand

School of Health Sciences, The University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, WA, Australia

Ben Goldacre

Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, United Kingdom

Acupuncture is one of the most widely used and broadly researched of the complementary and alternative therapies, but high-quality trials generally show no benefit over sham acupuncture. Many would view this result as evidence of ineffectiveness for this intervention. This discussion article focuses on the report of a large multicenter randomized controlled trial of acupuncture for chronic low-back pain (CLBP) in the lay and academic press, the ensuing discussion, and its impact on both clinical practice and service provision. The authors suggest that interpretive bias has affected reporting, leading to questionable conclusions and advocacy in favor of this form of care that may exceed the evidence. They also suggest that a lack of understanding of research into the placebo effect may have contributed to confusion in the interpretation of these trials.

Key Words: acupuncture • clinical trials • interpretive bias • back pain

Evaluation & the Health Professions, Vol. 32, No. 4, 393-409 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0163278709353394
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?