아 존나 웃겨 진짜 그 리듬을 타는 래퍼 처럼 쏟아대는 주옥같은 리플들.. 아.. 진짜 가끔 혼자 보다가 미친듯이 웃을 떄가 있어.

오늘것도 진짜 웃겼어. 판무대 애들이 "양양" 댄다고? ㅋㅋ 

임상논문으로 어그로 신나게 끌었으니, 좀 쉬었다가는 차원에서. 

별건 아니고? 병맛대결인데, 플라시보 중에 젤 쎈 놈을 고르는 거야. 그니깐 허당 중에 누가 덜 허당이냐는거지.

원래 코크란에서 피지컬한 플라시보가 밀가루 즉 알약으로 만든 플라시보 보다 세다! 란 논문이 나왔대. 그래서 이 저자들이 그중에 가짜침만 골라내서 그러면 피지컬한 플라시보 중에 아큐펑쳐가 쎄나 다른 놈들이 더쎄나? 비교를 해본거지. (여기서 쎄다의 의미는 효과가 있다는 걸 뜻해. 즉 플라시보의 역할로서는 별로란 얘기지) 암튼 그래서 데이타를 소프트웨어에 놓고 애날라이시스를 죽 돌렸더니만, 61개중 19개가 '가짜침 vs 무처치'고 42개 '가짜침을 제외한 신체적 플라시보 vs 무처치군'이 나왔대. 

결론은 두 군간의 차이가 전자가 -0.41 후자가 -0.26 이었다는군? ㅋㅋㅋ

그니깐 한방짱인게 플라시보도 짱이여? ㅋㅋㅋ

Forsch Komplementmed. 2010 Oct;17(5):259-64. Epub 2010 Sep 7.

Linde K, Niemann K, Meissner K.

<h3 class="label" style="margin: 1.2856em 0px 0.6428em; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.2857; color: rgb(114, 65, 40); position: absolute; left: -10000px; top: auto; width: 1px; height: 1px; overflow: hidden; ">Source</h3>

Institute of General Practice, Technische Universität München, Munich, Germany. klaus.Linde@lrz.tum.de

<h3 style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; line-height: 1.2857; color: rgb(152, 87, 53); ">Abstract</h3><h4 style="margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; ">BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE:</h4>

A recent Cochrane review on placebo interventions for all kinds of conditions found that 'physical placebos' (which included sham acupuncture) were associated with larger effects over no-treatment control groups than 'pharmacological placebos'. We re-analyzed the data from this review to investigate whether effects associated with sham acupuncture differed from those of other 'physical placebos'.

<h4 style="margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; ">METHODS:</h4>

All trials included in the Cochrane review as investigating 'physical placebos' were classified as investigating either (sham) acupuncture orother physical placebos. The latter group was further subclassified into groups of similar interventions. Data from the Cochrane review were re-entered into the RevMan 5 software for meta-analysis. The primary analysis was a random-effects analysis of trials reporting continuous outcomes of trials that used either sham acupuncture or other physical placebos.

<h4 style="margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; ">RESULTS:</h4>

Out of a total of 61 trials which reported a continuous outcome measure, 19 compared sham acupuncture and 42 compared otherphysical placebos with a no-treatment control group. The trials re-analyzed were highly heterogeneous regarding patients, interventions and outcomes measured. The pooled standardized mean difference was -0.41 (95% confidence interval -0.56, -0.24) between sham acupuncture and no treatment and -0.26 (95% CI -0.37, -0.15) between other physical placebos and no treatment (p value for subgroup differences = 0.007). Significant differences were also observed between subgroups of other physical placebos.

<h4 style="margin: 0px 0.25em 0px 0px; padding: 0px; border: 0px; font: inherit; vertical-align: baseline; text-transform: uppercase; float: left; ">CONCLUSION:</h4>

Due to the heterogeneity of the trials included and the indirect comparison our results must be interpreted with caution. Still, they suggest that sham acupuncture interventions might, on average, be associated with larger effects than pharmacological and other physical placebos.

Copyright © 2010 S. Karger AG, Basel.