In reference to What are the best management strategies for radiation‐induced xerostomia?

Dr. Hutchinson and colleagues offer a Triological Society Best Practice article, entitled “What Are the Best Management Strategies for Radiation-Induced Xerostomia?” in the February 2014 issue of The Laryngoscope. In such a report, we should expect a high level of reliance on rigorous scientific standards. Unfortunately, this was not the case when the review was turned to a favorite of alternative medicine: acupuncture. Citing its “therapeutic promise” and “expanding role,” the authors offer only two studies to support enthusiasm for such a fantastic point of view (i.e., the tenets of acupuncture). The first, by Blom et al. (a full citation is not listed, but the authors’ 1996 report is the assumed source), is the very definition of a negative study: The treatment group performs similarly to the control group. The null hypothesis should be favored. The second, by Meng et al., reports on a study in which there was no placebo control for the acupuncture group, rendering any speculation of efficacy unsupported. Appropriate controls are especially significant in acupuncture studies, as illustrated by the Blom et al. article (along with many others). Wellcontrolled acupuncture studies repeatedly show no difference between “true” and sham acupuncture. Despite the authors’ conclusion, the presented evidence does not suggest that acupuncture is a useful treatment for xerostomia. High-quality studies, along with critical interpretation, should be the foundation of any Best Practice advisement.