I was dismayed to see the headline on the front of the BJGP claiming that ‘Acupuncture: effective in a randomised trial for patients with unexplained symptoms’.1 Alas, this is the kind of handling I would expect from the tabloid press.
The study did not take account of recent systematic reviews that sham acupuncture is as good as ‘real’ acupuncture, and that the effect in any case was ‘to lack clinical relevance and cannot be clearly distinguished from bias’.2 To know this, and not to account for it, is a major design flaw and one that infers that this research paper wasted resources. Second, the paper showed marginal effects from a ratings scale not established out with ‘complementary’ medicines, and an increased attendance rate at general practices in the intervention group compared with the control group. Yet the authors concluded that acupuncture is effective and GPs should offer it. If a pharmaceutical company presented the same findings in support of a drug we would rightly ignore it.
This kind of research is damaging. It promotes false ideas, fails to take account of previous findings, and places expectations with patients who then have to be let down by GPs who wish to practice evidence-based and compassionate health care.
I would ask that the paper is withdrawn and the headline retracted. To learn and move on, the peer reviews made of the paper should be published. In future, if the BJGP makes an error in press releasing and headlining a research project, then the entire article should be made immediately free to view to all online, so that we can make our own judgments even before letters of dissent in the journal are eventually published.
- © British Journal of General Practice 2011
