Responses
Other responses
Jump to comment:
- Published on: 14 April 2019
- Published on: 22 February 2019
- Published on: 21 February 2019
- Published on: 14 April 2019Comments on the Study as Published in BMJ OPen
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: 22 February 2019Shameful
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: 21 February 2019ACOM was not a properly randomized trial
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.