This study used Pericardium 6 (Neiguan) acupoint (photo) to reduce chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting.

It raises as many questions as it attempts to answer.

First, the details.

• Patients were randomly assigned to acupressure applied using wristbands (Sea-Band) for the 5 days following chemotherapy or no acupressure.
• Results are based on 36 patients who completed the study.

And the significant benefits of acupressure.

• Less nausea and retching experience
• Less nausea, vomiting, and retching occurrence and distress
• But there was no difference in vomiting

The bottom line?
The reported benefits with acupressure and acupuncture to reduce nausea and vomiting have been summarized on this blog — here, here, and here.

But based on what’s presented in the abstract of this study, I have some questions.

• Why are the results limited to those who completed the study (and presumably had the best experience)?
• Would the findings be significant if all enrolled patients were evaluated (intent-to-treat group)?
• What was the difference in drug use between groups?
• It’s not clear why the symptom groupings were used? Why not just report differences in nausea, retching, and vomiting as individual outcomes?

My final question is why does a journal (Complementary Therapies in Medicine) that specializes in CAM research permit authors to write incomplete and misleading abstracts? It’s bad for the researchers’, and the journal’s reputation. And it’s a practice that raises doubt (whether justified or unjustified doesn’t matter) about the results. It makes it easy for critics of CAM to disregard the research.

5/12/07 20:42 JR