Backhanded Compliment

Very strange abstract published by the Journal of Cardiopulmonary Rehabilitation and Prevention this week. The research paper titled, Acupuncture as an Adjunct to Pulmonary Rehabilitation looks at a possible role of acupuncture in helping patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) who undergo pulmonary rehabilitation (PR). It is a pretty fantastic area to research. COPD is typically a fairly serious condition and looking into how acupuncture may help is great.

The published abstract is a bit humorous and curious in its wording.

The Conclusion states [emphasis mine],

"The addition of acupuncture to PR did not add significant benefit in most of the outcomes measured."

There were no benefits to "most" of the outcomes? Were there "some" outcomes that did add a significant benefit?

The Results state [emphasis mine],

"There were no differences in most of the outcome measures between the 2 treatment groups except that subjects who had both acupuncture and PR remained less breathless for a longer period."

"...remained less breathless for a longer period", that means, "experienced less breathlessness", or, "had an easier time breathing for a longer period of time."

The abstract seems to be saying that acupuncture did not help with most of the outcomes being measured; although it did help subjects breathe easier for a longer period of time.

Which seems like a pretty great thing.

To be fair I have not read the full article. I need to get a copy of it from the medical library. It may simply be a poor choice of wording and acupuncture showed no meaningful benefits at all. If the breathlessness mentioned was not statistically significant the result would be meaningless. However it is unusual to mention a benefit in an abstract like this when it is not statistically significant. The way it is written now, the abstract comes across as a backhanded compliment.