การวิจัยทางการแพทย์สำหรับนิทรรศการวิทยาศาสตร์

(iStockphoto)

I am really at a loss for understanding yet another positive acupuncture study that was as well designed as my 8th grade science fair project. จริงอยู่, I was a nerdy science kid, but I could do a better job drunk. I think I should conduct a followup study in which I test the efficacy of porcupines tossed at your back. It would certainly be more amusing; and full of just about as much scientific value. Not to mention, porcupines are kinda cute.

The real problems with the study:

• Unblinded
• n=15. Their x² tests may have resulted in a significant response, but in no imagination of any universe does 15 equal a statistically significant sampling of any population, anywhere.
• No negative control. They treated all of their patients with acupuncture or vitamins. Vitamin B complex is a treatment (still a very poorly supported one), and only a positive control. Whose to say smell didn’t naturally improve over the course of the study? The authors can not.

So my question is, what can possibly be the motivation for this study? I can imagine how this was dreamt up, around the coloring books one day “Hey Doc Julia, acupuncture sure works huh?” “Why yes it does fellow idiot, let’s create a really crappy study to show just that!”. Take a look at my older acupuncture post for more links and a bit more discussion on why ancient chinese medicine is a waste of money. Of course if you test 15 people you can scrape together a positive result for just about anything. But as you start to introduce larger and more tightly controlled studies the positive effects start to shrink.

Ridiculous. And now that I look at it, my 8th grade science fair project was conducted with two sets of controls, blinded, and had a sample size of 18 (antibacterial effectiveness of kitchen cleaners). ขอบคุณ, I’ll kindly take my position at the University of Cologne Medical Center now.