Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
Author Information
Author(s): Brandon Horn, Judith Balk, Jeffrey I. Gold
Hypothesis
The article challenges the conventional assumption that placebo or sham controls can and should be used to establish the efficacy of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) therapies.
Conclusion
Sham-controlled studies cannot reliably establish efficacy and often lead to misleading conclusions about treatment effectiveness.
Supporting Evidence
- Sham controls have been misused in many studies, leading to questionable conclusions about treatment efficacy.
- Psychological effects may be unique to specific interventions, making it inappropriate to remove them in efficacy trials.
- Sham-controlled studies often fail to provide data on the true effects of a given treatment.
Takeaway
This article says that using fake treatments in studies might not help us understand if real treatments work, and sometimes they can make things confusing.
Potential Biases
Assumptions about psychological factors being ancillary can introduce bias in sham-controlled studies.
Limitations
The article discusses the limitations of sham controls in clinical trials but does not provide specific limitations of its own.
Digital Object Identifier (DOI)
Want to read the original?
Access the complete publication on the publisher's website