Talk:Acupuncture/Archive 21
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Acupuncture. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 15 | ← | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | Archive 22 | Archive 23 | → | Archive 25 |
AAO-HNS has included acupuncture as a treatment option for allergic rhinitis
In Clinical Practice Guideline: Allergic Rhinitis, released February 2, 2015, the American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS) has included acupuncture as a treatment option for allergic rhinitis:
- Clinical Practice Guideline
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/152/1_suppl/S1.full
- Executive Summary
http://oto.sagepub.com/content/152/2/197.full
- Plain language summary for patients
- Allergic Rhinitis Diagnosis and Treatment Flow Chart
-A1candidate 13:48, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes basically says low quality evidence supports the use of acupuncture for allergic rhinitis. It also says "Research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of acupuncture for AR. There is a relative paucity of data in the English-language literature regarding the use of complementary and integrative medicine for AR. As such, specific recommendations for or against these treatments could not be made. Higher levels of evidence regarding these therapies need to be obtained through well-designed clinical trials and/or systematic reviews of existing data."[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Grade B evidence is not considered low quality. The rest of the statment deals with "complementary and integrative medicine" generally, not acupuncture. -A1candidate 15:36, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- You two are obviously not reading the same study. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is more of a clinical practice guideline than a "study". -A1candidate 17:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct that these are clinical practice guidelines and that grade B evidence is not low quality. Also receiving a grade of B was "control of environmental factors" (recommending getting rid of pets, dust mite avoidance, air filter change, etc.) and IgE skin testing, both of which are pretty routine standards of care. LesVegas (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- The recommendation was apparently not based on evidence of effectiveness. At least there is no indication of such in the executive summary. It was recommended because it is not expensive and is unlikely to cause harm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Read it again carefully. The decision by AAO-HNS to allocate a Grade B level of evidence is based on RCTs and observational studies. This is explicitly stated in the full text of the executive summary. -A1candidate 09:32, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- The recommendation was apparently not based on evidence of effectiveness. At least there is no indication of such in the executive summary. It was recommended because it is not expensive and is unlikely to cause harm. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:01, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes, you are correct that these are clinical practice guidelines and that grade B evidence is not low quality. Also receiving a grade of B was "control of environmental factors" (recommending getting rid of pets, dust mite avoidance, air filter change, etc.) and IgE skin testing, both of which are pretty routine standards of care. LesVegas (talk) 20:49, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- This is more of a clinical practice guideline than a "study". -A1candidate 17:02, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
- Yes basically says low quality evidence supports the use of acupuncture for allergic rhinitis. It also says "Research is needed to determine the safety and efficacy of acupuncture for AR. There is a relative paucity of data in the English-language literature regarding the use of complementary and integrative medicine for AR. As such, specific recommendations for or against these treatments could not be made. Higher levels of evidence regarding these therapies need to be obtained through well-designed clinical trials and/or systematic reviews of existing data."[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:28, 4 February 2015 (UTC)
Open this http://oto.sagepub.com/content/152/1_suppl/S1.full and search for "Higher levels of evidence regarding these therapies need to be obtained through well-designed" and you will see the text I have copied and pasted above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:31, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- Nobody is doubting your ability to copy and paste. The evidence was rated as Grade B based on RCTs and observational studies. Further research is of course warranted -A1candidate 13:46, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is the conclusion of every single SCAM paper ever written, as far as I can tell. The reason is simple: all conflicting evidence is ignored or waved away, and that always leaves a gap that needs to be filled by more positive evidence (because negative evidence is always wrong, according to the CAM believers). This allows them to make a career out of P-hacking and put off for as long as possible the day when science finally says that in the absence of a credible mechanism, and credible objective evidence of effect, we probably ought not to subject any more human patients to trials whose results will make no difference unless the CAM community like them. The Declaraiton of Helsinki is your enemy here. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is not what the AAO-HNS concluded. So is the AAO-HNS part of the SCAM industry? Are the board members of AAO-HNS fringe advocates? No. -A1candidate 00:02, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
- That is the conclusion of every single SCAM paper ever written, as far as I can tell. The reason is simple: all conflicting evidence is ignored or waved away, and that always leaves a gap that needs to be filled by more positive evidence (because negative evidence is always wrong, according to the CAM believers). This allows them to make a career out of P-hacking and put off for as long as possible the day when science finally says that in the absence of a credible mechanism, and credible objective evidence of effect, we probably ought not to subject any more human patients to trials whose results will make no difference unless the CAM community like them. The Declaraiton of Helsinki is your enemy here. Guy (Help!) 23:47, 5 February 2015 (UTC)