Thanks for the link. I'm not claiming to be an expert so can you explain what the values here mean? How significant an improvement are these numbers and how do they compare to just doing nothing?
> It had moderate effect compared with non-acupuncture care for musculoskeletal pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.58), osteoarthritis (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64) and headache (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.46).
Also, the comparisons to acupuncture vs sham acupuncture...is this implying that acupunture has some validity (meridians etc.) or just that the sham wasn't convincing enough? Why would acupuncture perform better when meridians have no scientific plausibility?
I've no doubt an elaborate procedure such as acupuncture produces a strong placebo effect but something that isn't better than a placebo shouldn't be considered as working in my opinion.
> It had moderate effect compared with non-acupuncture care for musculoskeletal pain (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.55, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.51 to 0.58), osteoarthritis (SMD 0.57, 95% CI 0.50 to 0.64) and headache (SMD 0.42, 95% CI 0.37 to 0.46).
Also, the comparisons to acupuncture vs sham acupuncture...is this implying that acupunture has some validity (meridians etc.) or just that the sham wasn't convincing enough? Why would acupuncture perform better when meridians have no scientific plausibility?
I've no doubt an elaborate procedure such as acupuncture produces a strong placebo effect but something that isn't better than a placebo shouldn't be considered as working in my opinion.