OBJECTIVES: In recent years the retractable type of sham needle has been anticipated to be a possible solution for masking patients in acupuncture research. However, this needle has been intended mainly for acupuncture-naïve subjects. The authors' goal in this study was to assess the validity of the retractable type of sham needle. METHODS: The authors conducted two randomized, single-blind, crossover trials with acupuncture-experienced subjects. Different acupuncture points were used in each trial (a LI-4 trial and a BL-23 trial). The subjects received two sessions of different stimulations in each trial. A Park Sham Needle was used in one session, a genuine acupuncture needle in the other. RESULTS: In the LI-4 trial, all of the 21 subjects (100%) felt penetration with the genuine needle, but only 7 of the 20 subjects (35%) felt a similar sensation with the sham needle (P=0.0002). Fifteen of the 21 subjects (71%) felt a dull sensation with the genuine needle, but only 4 of the 20 subjects (20%) felt a similar sensation with the sham needle (P=0.01). In the BL-23 trial, 14 of the 20 subjects (70%) felt penetration with the genuine needle and 10 of the 20 subjects (50%) felt "penetration" with the sham needle (P=0.39). Eight of the 20 subjects (40%) felt a dull sensation with the genuine needle and 2 of the 20 subjects (10%) did with the sham needle (P=0.109). CONCLUSIONS: Potential factors that influence the applicability of "placebo" needling include not only inter-tester variability but also the patient's knowledge and experience of acupuncture, acupuncture point selection, the visual impact of needling, and so on.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: In recent years the retractable type of sham needle has been anticipated to be a possible solution for masking patients in acupuncture research. However, this needle has been intended mainly for acupuncture-naïve subjects. The authors' goal in this study was to assess the validity of the retractable type of sham needle. METHODS: The authors conducted two randomized, single-blind, crossover trials with acupuncture-experienced subjects. Different acupuncture points were used in each trial (a LI-4 trial and a BL-23 trial). The subjects received two sessions of different stimulations in each trial. A Park Sham Needle was used in one session, a genuine acupuncture needle in the other. RESULTS: In the LI-4 trial, all of the 21 subjects (100%) felt penetration with the genuine needle, but only 7 of the 20 subjects (35%) felt a similar sensation with the sham needle (P=0.0002). Fifteen of the 21 subjects (71%) felt a dull sensation with the genuine needle, but only 4 of the 20 subjects (20%) felt a similar sensation with the sham needle (P=0.01). In the BL-23 trial, 14 of the 20 subjects (70%) felt penetration with the genuine needle and 10 of the 20 subjects (50%) felt "penetration" with the sham needle (P=0.39). Eight of the 20 subjects (40%) felt a dull sensation with the genuine needle and 2 of the 20 subjects (10%) did with the sham needle (P=0.109). CONCLUSIONS: Potential factors that influence the applicability of "placebo" needling include not only inter-tester variability but also the patient's knowledge and experience of acupuncture, acupuncture point selection, the visual impact of needling, and so on.
Authors: Shizhe Deng; Xiaofeng Zhao; Rong DU; S I He; Yan Wen; Linghui Huang; Guang Tian; Chao Zhang; Zhihong Meng; Xuemin Shi Journal: Exp Ther Med Date: 2015-07-23 Impact factor: 2.447
Authors: Lisa Corbin; Rebecca Childs; Caitlin Dilli; Mary K Christian; Ban Wong; Daisy Dong-Cedar; Benzi M Kluger Journal: Med Acupunct Date: 2016-08-01
Authors: Kathleen K S Hui; Ovidiu Marina; Joshua D Claunch; Erika E Nixon; Jiliang Fang; Jing Liu; Ming Li; Vitaly Napadow; Mark Vangel; Nikos Makris; Suk-Tak Chan; Kenneth K Kwong; Bruce R Rosen Journal: Brain Res Date: 2009-06-25 Impact factor: 3.252
Authors: Johannes Fleckenstein; Sybille Kramer; Philipp Hoffrogge; Sarah Thoma; Philip M Lang; Lukas Lehmeyer; Gabriel M Schober; Florian Pfab; Johannes Ring; Peter Weisenseel; Klaus J Schotten; Ulrich Mansmann; Dominik Irnich Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med Date: 2009-08-12 Impact factor: 3.659
Authors: Alex Moroz; Brian Freed; Laura Tiedemann; Heejung Bang; Melanie Howell; Jongbae J Park Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med Date: 2013-03-03 Impact factor: 2.629