Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 We have several times in the past mentioned Bensoussan's IBS study in JAMA 1998-vol.280, No. 18. It was a controlled study comparing placebo to a standard and individualized chinese herb formulas. As most of us know, the folks on the standard formula did better than those on the individualized. A variety of results have been reported. We have most often heard the report of 76% vs. 64% vs. 33% (std, individual, placebo), but this was based upon the patients subjective reports. The gastroenterologist assessment was different in one area, though. 78% success rate on standard rx, 50% on individualized, 30% placebo. The difference in the doctor's assessment is quite large between the two herb groups and the doctors were blinded. Also 2-3 times as many patients worsened on the individual formulas. Unfortunately, we have no details on the individualized rx, so we cannot assess this aspect of the treatment, thereby making it hard to draw accurate conclusions. However we do have the std. rx and as suspected, there is good reason why it probably worked for so many patients. However, the study did show the individual group had more sustained effects. The researchers assume that the individual formulas got better long term results by more precisely treating the root. I would offer that the std. rx did a better job at addressing the branch. Thus we can learn from both of these groups responses. std. rx. - looks like tong xie yao fang plus xiang sha liu jun jun zi jia jian I am surprised it didn't work long term for most patients. dang shen huo xiang fang feng yi yi ren chai hu yin chen hao bai zhu hou po chen pi pao jiang qin pi fuling bai zhi che qian zi huang bai zhi gan cao bai shao mu xiang huang lian wu wei zi Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 , wrote: > to a standard and individualized chinese herb formulas. As most of us > know, the folks on the standard formula did better than those on the > individualized. A variety of results have been reported. We have most > often heard the report of 76% vs. 64% vs. 33% (std, individual, > placebo), but this was based upon the patients subjective reports. Thanks for posting this information, as I have not heard of it before now. In theory, individualized formulas should work better, however, there is one major problem with this in practice. Standard formulas are set in stone, and we all know what they are supposed to do, any many times they are old, tried, and tested formulas. Because of varying levels of skills and competencies among practitioners (I would never seek treatment from the majority of my classmates, for instance), one can never be certain if an individualized formula even comes close to addressing the patient's complaint. The diagnosis, treatment principle, guiding formula, or modifications could all be off to some degree. Brian C. Allen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.