Efficacy of a standardised acupuncture approach for women with bothersome menopausal symptoms: a pragmatic randomised study in primary care (the ACOM study)
Compose Response

Plain text

  • No HTML tags allowed.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
Author Information
First or given name, e.g. 'Peter'.
Your last, or family, name, e.g. 'MacMoody'.
Your email address, e.g.
Your role and/or occupation, e.g. 'Orthopedic Surgeon'.
Your organization or institution (if applicable), e.g. 'Royal Free Hospital'.
Statement of Competing Interests


  • Responses are moderated before posting and publication is at the absolute discretion of BMJ, however they are not peer-reviewed
  • Once published, you will not have the right to remove or edit your response. Removal or editing of responses is at BMJ's absolute discretion
  • If patients could recognise themselves, or anyone else could recognise a patient from your description, please obtain the patient's written consent to publication and send them to the editorial office before submitting your response [Patient consent forms]
  • By submitting this response you are agreeing to our full [Response terms and requirements]

Vertical Tabs

Other responses

Jump to comment:

  • Published on:
    Comments on the Study as Published in BMJ OPen
    • Henare R Broughton, General Practitioner Woolloongabba Medical Centre, Woolloongaba, Queensland, Australia.

    This particular study would better be described as a potential Pilot Trial and hence the data generated would be of an empirical nature. There was an opportunity to randomise the GP acupuncturists into a control group matched to an intervention group which could be a double blinded RCT trial. More dialogue is needed on acupuncture therapeutics throughout the study. eg the qi and its behaviour about bothersome menopausal symptoms including anxiety.

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    • Eric D LaMotte, General internist University of Washington Medical Center

    The authors' assertion that sham acupuncture represents an active intervention and therefore would not be useful as a comparison I find uncompelling. This study is drivel as the difference between groups is likely driven completely by the placebo effect. I am disappointed to see this published by a journal that I associate with quality. It's a shame that media outlets will call this trial "controlled".

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.
  • Published on:
    ACOM was not a properly randomized trial
    • Zvonko Rumboldt, professor emeritus Split University School of Medicine, Split, Croatia

    To my surprise BMJ has published a poorly controlled study. Instead of "non intervention" the control group had to be subjected to a "sham acupuncture" (my suggestion is putting the needles at random or in a "scientific way"). Otherwise the well known Hawthorne effect must have been anticipated. Did the reviewers comment on this?

    Conflict of Interest:
    None declared.