Sham acupuncture is as efficacious as true acupuncture for the treatment of IBS: A randomized placebo controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) patients increasingly seek out acupuncture therapy to alleviate symptoms, but it is unclear whether the benefit is due to a treatment-specific effect or a placebo response. This study examined whether true acupuncture is superior to sham acupuncture in relieving IBS symptoms and whether benefits were linked to purported acupuncture mechanisms. METHODS: A double blind sham controlled acupuncture study was conducted with Rome I IBS patients receiving twice weekly true acupuncture for 4 weeks (n=43) or sham acupuncture (n=36). Patients returned at 12 weeks for a follow-up review. The primary endpoint of success as determined by whether patients met or exceeded their established goal for percentage symptom improvement. Questionnaires were completed for symptom severity scores, SF-36 and IBS-36 QOL tools, McGill pain score, and Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index. A subset of patients underwent barostat measurements of rectal sensation at baseline and 4 weeks. KEY RESULTS: A total of 53% in the true acupuncture group met their criteria for a successful treatment intervention, but this did not differ significantly from the sham group (42%). IBS symptom scores similarly improved in both groups. Scores also improved in the IBS-36, SF-36, and the Pittsburg Sleep Quality Index, but did not differ between groups. Rectal sensory thresholds were increased in both groups following treatment and pain scores decreased; however, these changes were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS & INFERENCES: The lack of differences in symptom outcomes between sham and true treatment acupuncture suggests that acupuncture does not have a specific treatment effect in IBS.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".