Réservez une séance
EN — English
📅
Book a session — Calendly
Industry funding does bias research, and that concern is legitimate. But the largest acupuncture trials were publicly funded. Here is what the disclosures show.

Where this idea comes from

The concern is a good one, and it did not come from nowhere. Pharmaceutical companies have been shown to publish favourable trials more often than unfavourable ones, and the same pattern appears wherever the funder has a commercial interest in the result. Applying that lesson to acupuncture is a reasonable first move.
The problem is the next step, where a documented pattern in one field becomes an accusation about every study in another. Acupuncture research is not funded by needle manufacturers in any meaningful sense; needles are cheap, and the organisations paying for the large trials are public research agencies.

What Chinese medicine actually says

The tradition has no history of research funding, because it had no research. Practitioners were paid for consultations, and their reputations depended on results observed in their own patients. That model produces loyalty and skill, and it also produces exactly the bias that a funded trial is designed to correct.
Nothing in the classical literature objects to being tested. What the tradition asserts is that a good practitioner individualises treatment, which is a claim about method rather than about evidence. The two can coexist, and the more interesting question is who bears the cost of finding out.

What the research says

The largest trials were not funded by the profession. The 2018 individual-patient analysis by Vickers and colleagues was supported by a US National Institutes of Health grant, and Hinman's 2014 trial in JAMA was funded by the Australian national health and medical research council. Cochrane reviews require funders to be declared and exclude industry sponsorship of the review itself.
That does not make the literature clean. Small studies from practitioner groups exist, publication bias favours positive findings, and many trials are underpowered. A fair reading is that funding is one source of bias among several, and that the bigger, publicly funded trials tend to report smaller effects, which is what you would expect if bias were operating. That pattern, larger effects in smaller and more interested studies, is one of the most reproducible findings in clinical epidemiology. It is a reason to read the methods, not to stop reading.

What you can realistically expect

At Centre Équilibre in Grenoble, Ghislaine Morin does not present the research as settled, and the centre's material says where the evidence is thin. That is a low bar for honesty and a surprisingly rare one. The TCM dispensary at the centre is held to the same standard, and to the stricter rules on health claims for products.
What you can ask for is specific: which study, published when, funded by whom, and how many patients. A practitioner who can answer those questions has read the literature. One who answers that all research is bought has not, and is using a real problem as a universal excuse.

When to consult, and when not to

Consult if the evidence for your specific problem seems reasonable to you after reading it, and if the practitioner is willing to discuss its limits. Do not consult anyone who dismisses questions about evidence as hostility, or who claims that criticism comes only from interested parties.
Do not accept a study as proof because it was published, and do not reject one because a funder had an interest. Both moves are shortcuts. If a claim about your health rests on a single small trial, that is worth knowing before you pay for a course of treatment.

Frequently asked questions

Are acupuncture studies funded by acupuncture practitioners?

Some small studies are, and those deserve scrutiny. The largest and most cited trials were funded by public research agencies such as the US National Institutes of Health and Australia's NHMRC. Commercial needle manufacturers have little reason to fund such work.

Does funding bias affect acupuncture research?

It can, as it can anywhere. Industry-sponsored trials are more likely to report favourable results, and small practitioner-led studies may suffer the same pressure. The safeguard is disclosure, pre-registration and replication, which is why the large independent trials carry more weight.

How can I tell whether a study is trustworthy?

Look at the size, the control group, whether patients and assessors were blinded, who funded it, and whether it was registered in advance. A trial of thirty people with no sham group is a pilot study, whatever the press release chooses to call it.

Useful links

Sources

If acupuncture worked, would your doctor prescribe it? A closer lookIf acupuncture works on animals, does that rule out a placebo effect?
Loading...
Ghislaine Morin
Ghislaine Morin
Praticienne en médecine traditionnelle chinoise et sophrologue à Grenoble
Sommaire
0%