Which to Believe?

March 11, 2010 in Acupuncture, Herbal Medicine, Research | 2 comments

Sometimes I wonder just how long is a study’s “shelf life.”

Acupuncture ‘does not aid fertility treatment’ (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7405852/Acupuncture-does-not-aid-fertility-treatment.html) – March 2010.  ”New” research says so.

Seems to contradict:

Acupuncture helps women have babies (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3042006/Acupuncture-helps-women-have-babies.html) – September 2008. “New” research (at the time) says so.

Okay the first article refers to a meta-analysis of previous studies, the bottom one included.  This means they didn’t actually do new research but reviewed old ones.

Here’s where I believe that acupuncture is truly practitioner dependent.  I’m usually good with neurologic problems but others are admittedly better than I when it comes to infertility.  Dr. Regina Liu, a friend of mine who is licensed in China and the US in acupuncture has carved a niche for herself when it comes to infertility.  Her office is lined with pictures of the “proofs” of her successes.

All I can say is that given what I know about statistical manipulation – you can twist the numbers to say almost anything you want – I value clinical experience more than anything else when it comes to treatment evaluation.  Good practitioners learn from experience what works and what doesn’t.  I can safely say, in good conscience, NOT that acupuncture is beneficial in treating infertility, but that there are doctors like Dr. Liu (and myself too – I’ve gotten quite a few patients pregnant… wait that didn’t sound right…!) who are quite skilled in USING acupuncture and herbs in treating infertility.  Acupuncture is a procedure, not a pill, and is practitioner dependent.

Related Posts with Thumbnails
  • Share/Bookmark

Tags: , ,

  1. Chris Kresser’s avatar

    Chris Kresser on March 11, 2010 at 11:22 pm

    Hi Phillip,

    I imagine you know this, but for the benefit of your readers, meta-analyses are compilation studies in which researchers comb the medical literature for papers on a particular subject and then combine all the data from the individual studies together into one large study. This combining is often done to bring together a collection of studies, none of which contain data that has reached statistical significance, to see if the aggregate of all the data in the studies reaches statistical significance.

    Meta-analyses are highly suspect, because they can lead to conclusions not warranted by the actual data. It’s always a good idea to take meta-analyses with a grain of salt.

  2. Philip’s avatar

    Philip on March 11, 2010 at 11:41 pm

    Thanks for pointing that out, Chris. I do have a tendency to unconsciously assume that others know what I know. My acupuncture students who are not MDs constantly have to remind me to “translate” my western med terms into more everyday language.

    A “made easy” way of explaining meta analyses is “let’s look at all the studies done, adding up all the numbers and see how they go”. Some studies may say it works, others say it doesn’t. You can always choose studies that you KNOW can add up to a “doesn’t work” conclusion.

Spam Protection by WP-SpamFree Plugin

Switch to our mobile site