March 2009
M T W T F S S
« Feb   Apr »
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
3031  
Please support our Sponsors

The Problem with Placebos

The Problem with Placebos

The Chiro.Org Blog


Numerous clinical trials that explored the effect of spinal adjusting (or manipulation, aka SMT) on various conditions have concluded that adjusting had no effect, because SMT and the placebo (or “sham” adjustment) had similar beneficial results.

What these studies failed to emphasize was that the sham manipulation and the specific adjustment both demonstrated clinical benefits, compared with no care or standard medical management.

The Problem with Placebos Page reviews many articles which discuss the problems with developing a truly neutral sham adjustment, and roundly criticizes those studies which manipulate that data to appear as if SMT did not provide clinical benefit.

2 comments to The Problem with Placebos

  • Obie Bendix

    Nevertheless, the development of sham procedures must be pursued diligently to ever refine our investigative techniques.

  • Tony Rosner posits some interesting thoughts on that topic in his JMPT article:

    Fables or Foibles: Inherent Problems with RCTs

    http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymmt/article/PIIS0161475403000940/fulltext

    RTCs are considered the gold standard. And yet, they work best with drug trials, where you do, or don’t get the drug.

    The problem with “physical” modalities is that physical contact must be made to make the placebo credible, and we don’t know how much that contact contributes to the “non-specific” effects of care.

    Here’s a trick question: Can you design a placebo form of massage, to compare “real” massage with?

    Thanks for your input!

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

CAPTCHA Image

*

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>