Systematic review of systematic reviews of acupuncture published 1996–2005
Abstract
Systematic reviews of acupuncture have tended to support its use, but few applied rigorous inclusion criteria. We tested the credibility of conclusions of systematic reviews of acupuncture published since 1996 by applying rigorous inclusion criteria. Reinterpretation used randomised and double blind trials with valid outcomes or design, and with information available from at least four trials or from 200 patients. Qualified support for acupuncture was originally reported in 12 out of 35 systematic reviews, and strong support was found in another six. Applying stricter inclusion criteria, however, showed that none of the 35 reviews supported acupuncture, predominantly because there were too few patients in the randomised, double blind studies. Six reviews with more than 200 patients in randomised, double blind studies had good evidence of no benefit. Systematic reviews of acupuncture have overstated effectiveness by including studies likely to be biased. They provide no robust evidence that acupuncture works for any indication.
- © 2006 Royal College of Physicians
Article Tools
Citation Manager Formats
Jump to section
Related Articles
- No related articles found.
Cited By...
- Risk of bias and methodological issues in randomised controlled trials of acupuncture for knee osteoarthritis: a cross-sectional study
- The importance of placebo effects in enhancing palliative care interventions
- Methodology and reporting of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies in psychiatric epidemiology: systematic review
- Cost-Effectiveness of Acupuncture Care as an Adjunct to Exercise-Based Physical Therapy for Osteoarthritis of the Knee
- Making the best of a little
- Acupuncture as an adjunct to exercise based physiotherapy for osteoarthritis of the knee: randomised controlled trial