Eric Manheimer1. 1. Center for Integrative Medicine, School of Medicine, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA. emanheimer@compmed.umm.edu
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the theoretical and methodologic rationales for the use of sham acupuncture controls in trials of adjuvant acupuncture for in vitro fertilization (IVF), and to identify the drawbacks of using a sham acupuncture control that may have its own effects on the pregnancy outcome. BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has typically been tested in trials that evaluate subjective, patient-reported outcomes such as pain. Ratings of pain and similar subjective states can be strongly influenced by respondents' prejudgments, preferences, and expectations about treatment benefits. Therefore, controlling for these expectations or "placebo effects" by using a sham acupuncture control group is critically important in trials of acupuncture for pain-related conditions. This need for sham acupuncture controls in trials of acupuncture for pain-related conditions may have led to the belief that sham acupuncture is always the most "rigorous" control, and that it should therefore be used for all acupuncture trials, including trials of adjuvant acupuncture for IVF. CONCLUSION(S): In trials of adjuvant acupuncture for IVF, the outcome is pregnancy, which is entirely objective and unlikely to be affected by a patient's expectations of a benefit of acupuncture. Because it seems unlikely that an IVF patient's knowledge of whether she was receiving adjuvant acupuncture would affect her ability to become pregnant from IVF, using sham acupuncture to control for expectation/placebo effects seems unnecessary in this context. Even if adjuvant acupuncture were to increase IVF success rates only through a psychosomatic effect mechanism, such as by reducing stress, this stress-reduction effect would be integral to the working mechanism by which adjuvant acupuncture increases IVF pregnancy rates; therefore, it seems inappropriate to control for and separate out any such stress-reduction effect by using a sham control. Because of the risk that the sham is not an inert placebo but rather an active treatment that may affect the pregnancy outcome, using sham acupuncture as the control may unnecessarily confuse rather than clarify the interpretation of the effects of IVF adjuvant acupuncture. Using both theoretical concerns and epidemiologic evidence, researchers should carefully weigh the benefits and drawbacks of using sham acupuncture to blind patients in adjuvant acupuncture for IVF trials, and should question, rather than automatically accept, whether "placebo effects" are an important risk of bias in this context.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the theoretical and methodologic rationales for the use of sham acupuncture controls in trials of adjuvant acupuncture for in vitro fertilization (IVF), and to identify the drawbacks of using a sham acupuncture control that may have its own effects on the pregnancy outcome. BACKGROUND: Acupuncture has typically been tested in trials that evaluate subjective, patient-reported outcomes such as pain. Ratings of pain and similar subjective states can be strongly influenced by respondents' prejudgments, preferences, and expectations about treatment benefits. Therefore, controlling for these expectations or "placebo effects" by using a sham acupuncture control group is critically important in trials of acupuncture for pain-related conditions. This need for sham acupuncture controls in trials of acupuncture for pain-related conditions may have led to the belief that sham acupuncture is always the most "rigorous" control, and that it should therefore be used for all acupuncture trials, including trials of adjuvant acupuncture for IVF. CONCLUSION(S): In trials of adjuvant acupuncture for IVF, the outcome is pregnancy, which is entirely objective and unlikely to be affected by a patient's expectations of a benefit of acupuncture. Because it seems unlikely that an IVFpatient's knowledge of whether she was receiving adjuvant acupuncture would affect her ability to become pregnant from IVF, using sham acupuncture to control for expectation/placebo effects seems unnecessary in this context. Even if adjuvant acupuncture were to increase IVF success rates only through a psychosomatic effect mechanism, such as by reducing stress, this stress-reduction effect would be integral to the working mechanism by which adjuvant acupuncture increases IVF pregnancy rates; therefore, it seems inappropriate to control for and separate out any such stress-reduction effect by using a sham control. Because of the risk that the sham is not an inert placebo but rather an active treatment that may affect the pregnancy outcome, using sham acupuncture as the control may unnecessarily confuse rather than clarify the interpretation of the effects of IVF adjuvant acupuncture. Using both theoretical concerns and epidemiologic evidence, researchers should carefully weigh the benefits and drawbacks of using sham acupuncture to blind patients in adjuvant acupuncture for IVF trials, and should question, rather than automatically accept, whether "placebo effects" are an important risk of bias in this context.
Authors: Lesley Wood; Matthias Egger; Lise Lotte Gluud; Kenneth F Schulz; Peter Jüni; Douglas G Altman; Christian Gluud; Richard M Martin; Anthony J G Wood; Jonathan A C Sterne Journal: BMJ Date: 2008-03-03
Authors: Shizhe Deng; Xiaofeng Zhao; Rong DU; S I He; Yan Wen; Linghui Huang; Guang Tian; Chao Zhang; Zhihong Meng; Xuemin Shi Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.447
Authors: Eric Manheimer; Ke Cheng; L Susan Wieland; Li Shih Min; Xueyong Shen; Brian M Berman; Lixing Lao Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2012-05-16
Authors: Jeanette Ezzo; Eric Manheimer; Margaret L McNeely; Doris M Howell; Robert Weiss; Karin I Johansson; Ting Bao; Linda Bily; Catherine M Tuppo; Anne F Williams; Didem Karadibak Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2015-05-21
Authors: Eric Manheimer; L Susan Wieland; Ke Cheng; Shih Min Li; Xueyong Shen; Brian M Berman; Lixing Lao Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2012-04-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Lee E Hullender Rubin; Michael S Opsahl; Klaus E Wiemer; Scott D Mist; Aaron B Caughey Journal: Reprod Biomed Online Date: 2015-02-24 Impact factor: 3.828
Authors: Eric Manheimer; Daniëlle van der Windt; Ke Cheng; Kristen Stafford; Jianping Liu; Jayne Tierney; Lixing Lao; Brian M Berman; Patricia Langenberg; Lex M Bouter Journal: Hum Reprod Update Date: 2013-06-27 Impact factor: 15.610