z-logo
open-access-imgOpen Access
Revisiting the Sham: Is It all Smoke and Mirrors?
Author(s) -
Brandon Horn,
Judith Balk,
Jeffrey I. Gold
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.552
H-Index - 90
eISSN - 1741-4288
pISSN - 1741-427X
DOI - 10.1093/ecam/neq074
Subject(s) - context (archaeology) , placebo , interpretation (philosophy) , medicine , control (management) , psychology , alternative medicine , computer science , pathology , paleontology , artificial intelligence , biology , programming language
The misuse of sham controls in examining the efficacy or effectiveness of Complementary and Alternative Medicine has created numerous problems. The theoretical justification for incorporating a sham is questionable. The sham does not improve our control of bias and leads to relativistic data that, in most instances, has no appropriate interpretation with regards to treatment efficacy. Even the concept of a sham or placebo control in an efficacy trial is inherently paradoxical. Therefore, it is prudent to re-examine how we view sham controls in the context of medical research. Extreme caution should be used in giving weight to any sham-controlled study claiming to establish efficacy or safety.

The content you want is available to Zendy users.

Already have an account? Click here to sign in.
Having issues? You can contact us here
Accelerating Research

Address

John Eccles House
Robert Robinson Avenue,
Oxford Science Park, Oxford
OX4 4GP, United Kingdom