Ad description
A national press ad for ProBack Clinics, seen in the London Evening Standard on 12 June 2017, promoted the clinic’s shockwave treatment. Text stated “Shockwave treatment is a computerised alternative to manual manipulation where the machine is able to detect and correct spinal misalignments, break down scar tissue, reduce muscle spasms and facilitate the healing process by stimulating the production of blood vessels …”.
Issue
The complainant, who understood there was a lack of scientific evidence in support of shockwave treatment, challenged whether the efficacy claims were misleading and could be substantiated.
Response
ProBack Clinics provided a narrative paper which discussed the biological effects of extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) on tendon tissue. They also provided a web link to a website which discussed the treatment.
ProBack clinics confirmed that the ad had been withdrawn and they would be changing their future ads.
Assessment
Upheld
The ASA considered that the claims "Shockwave treatment … is able to detect and correct spinal misalignments, break down scar tissue, reduce muscle spasms and facilitate the healing process" would be interpreted by consumers to mean that Shockwave treatment could remedy the conditions listed.
ProBack clinics had provided one narrative paper and a website link. However, we did not receive any evidence in the form that we would expect to see to support such claims, such as clinical trials carried out on people demonstrating the efficacy of the treatment. The evidence we did see did not relate directly to the claims and were therefore not relevant as evidence to support the claims to treat the specific conditions. We therefore considered that the evidence supplied was insufficient to support the wide range of efficacy claims in the ad. Because we had not seen adequate evidence to support the efficacy claims for Shockwave Treatment, we concluded that they had not been substantiated and were therefore misleading.
The ad breached CAP Code (Edition 12) rules
3.1
3.1
Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.
(Misleading advertising),
3.7
3.7
Before distributing or submitting a marketing communication for publication, marketers must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation. The ASA may regard claims as misleading in the absence of adequate substantiation.
(Substantiation) and
12.1
12.1
Objective claims must be backed by evidence, if relevant consisting of trials conducted on people. Substantiation will be assessed on the basis of the available scientific knowledge.
Medicinal or medical claims and indications may be made for a medicinal product that is licensed by the MHRA, VMD or under the auspices of the EMA, or for a CE-marked medical device. A medicinal claim is a claim that a product or its constituent(s) can be used with a view to making a medical diagnosis or can treat or prevent disease, including an injury, ailment or adverse condition, whether of body or mind, in human beings.
Secondary medicinal claims made for cosmetic products as defined in the appropriate European legislation must be backed by evidence. These are limited to any preventative action of the product and may not include claims to treat disease.
(Medicines, medical devices, health-related products and beauty products).
Action
The ad must not appear again its current form. We told ProBack Clinics to ensure that they held robust documentary evidence for all their claims in future.
