Cargando…

Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?

The misuse of sham controls in examining the efficacy or effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine has created numerous problems. The theoretical justification for incorporating a sham is questionable. The sham does not improve our control of bias and leads to relativistic data that, i...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Horn, Brandon, Balk, Judith, Gold, Jeffrey I.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2011
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3137704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21785635
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ecam/neq074
_version_ 1782208312810405888
author Horn, Brandon
Balk, Judith
Gold, Jeffrey I.
author_facet Horn, Brandon
Balk, Judith
Gold, Jeffrey I.
author_sort Horn, Brandon
collection PubMed
description The misuse of sham controls in examining the efficacy or effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine has created numerous problems. The theoretical justification for incorporating a sham is questionable. The sham does not improve our control of bias and leads to relativistic data that, in most instances, has no appropriate interpretation with regards to treatment efficacy. Even the concept of a sham or placebo control in an efficacy trial is inherently paradoxical. Therefore, it is prudent to re-examine how we view sham controls in the context of medical research. Extreme caution should be used in giving weight to any sham-controlled study claiming to establish efficacy or safety.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-3137704
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2011
publisher Hindawi Publishing Corporation
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-31377042011-07-22 Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors? Horn, Brandon Balk, Judith Gold, Jeffrey I. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Commentary The misuse of sham controls in examining the efficacy or effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine has created numerous problems. The theoretical justification for incorporating a sham is questionable. The sham does not improve our control of bias and leads to relativistic data that, in most instances, has no appropriate interpretation with regards to treatment efficacy. Even the concept of a sham or placebo control in an efficacy trial is inherently paradoxical. Therefore, it is prudent to re-examine how we view sham controls in the context of medical research. Extreme caution should be used in giving weight to any sham-controlled study claiming to establish efficacy or safety. Hindawi Publishing Corporation 2011 2011-04-14 /pmc/articles/PMC3137704/ /pubmed/21785635 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ecam/neq074 Text en Copyright © 2011 Brandon Horn et al. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Commentary
Horn, Brandon
Balk, Judith
Gold, Jeffrey I.
Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
title Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
title_full Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
title_fullStr Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
title_full_unstemmed Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
title_short Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
title_sort revisiting the sham: is it all smoke and mirrors?
topic Commentary
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3137704/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21785635
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ecam/neq074
work_keys_str_mv AT hornbrandon revisitingtheshamisitallsmokeandmirrors
AT balkjudith revisitingtheshamisitallsmokeandmirrors
AT goldjeffreyi revisitingtheshamisitallsmokeandmirrors