The C.A.M. Report
Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Fair, Balanced, and to the Point
  • About this web log

    This blog ran from 2006 to 2016 and was intended as an objective and dispassionate source of information on the latest CAM research. Since my background is in pharmacy and allopathic medicine, I view all CAM as advancing through the development pipeline to eventually become integrated into mainstream medical practice. Some will succeed while others fail. But all are treated fairly here.

  • About the author

    John Russo, Jr., PharmD, is president of The MedCom Resource, Inc. Previously, he was senior vice president of medical communications at, a complementary and alternative medicine website.

  • Common sense considerations

    The material on this weblog is for informational purposes. It is not medical advice or counsel. Be smart, consult your health professional before using CAM.

  • Recent Posts

  • Recent Comments

    Future directions for acupuncture research

    There’s an online newsletter, CAM at the NIH, posted by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) that you might want to check out.

    This issue lists priorities for future acupuncture research.

    The list is the result from the annual meeting of the Society for Acupuncture Research, which was held in November 2007.

    Dr. Richard Nahin who is Senior Advisor for Scientific Coordination and Outreach at NCCAM said, “The quality of [acupuncture] clinical trials has increased, as has the presence of acupuncturists — especially licensed acupuncturists — on NIH-funded research teams. Mechanistic studies and moderate-sized trials are laying the groundwork for more definitive phase III trials.”

    Here is the state-of-the-art of acupuncture research:

    • The quantity and quality of studies have increased since 1997.
      • Some studies on acupuncture’s effectiveness have been positive, but most are mixed or inconclusive.
    • Some clinical trials found no difference between acupuncture and a placebo control (“sham”).
      • Overall there is greater benefit with acupuncture.
    • Basic-science studies show that acupuncture has a physiological basis.
      • However, more information on meridians and qi, and how the physiological response to acupuncture vs sham acupuncture differs are needed.

    The bottom line?
    The article observes, “We need agreement and consistency in … [the] approach to clinical trials, so that the results will be less diverse.” The recently published Standards for Reporting Intervention in Controlled Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) is a guide.”

    More about the current status of STRICTA is here.

    4/9/08 21:02 JR

    Leave a Comment

    You must be logged in to post a comment.