`::That's a rather interesting characterization.  It would be red flags if I entered this into the article instead of discussing it.  The representation of the findings are accurate, and this domain is my wheelhouse.  ``The current evidence is encouraging in that acupuncture may be more effective than medication for symptom improvement or relieve pain better than sham acupuncture in acute LBP. `` http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23269281.   When the AMA makes a recommendation for something 'non medicinal' like manipulation or acu, and there's a RS, well, it's worth consideration for inclusion in the article.  Is the systematic review 'poor' evidence?  I was using the term colloquially, but nonetheless, my point remains.      `