| Literature DB >> 23935678 |
Jaung-Geng Lin1, Pei-Chi Chou, Heng-Yi Chu.
Abstract
Objective. To explore the existing scientific information regarding safe needling depth of acupuncture points and the needling depth of clinical efficacy. Methods. We searched the PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED), The National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) databases to identify relevant monographs and related references from 1991 to 2013. Chinese journals and theses/dissertations were hand searched. Results. 47 studies were recruited and divided into 6 groups by measuring tools, that is, MRI, in vivo evaluation, CT, ultrasound, dissected specimen of cadavers, and another group with clinical efficacy. Each research was analyzed for study design, definition of safe depth, and factors that would affect the measured depths. Depths of clinical efficacy were discussed from the perspective of de-qi and other clinical observations. Conclusions. Great inconsistency in depth of each point measured from different subject groups and tools exists. The definition of safe depth should be established through standardization. There is also lack of researches to compare the clinical efficacy. A well-designed clinical trial selecting proper measuring tools to decide the actual and advisable needling depth for each point, to avoid adverse effects or complications and promote optimal clinical efficacy, is a top priority.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23935678 PMCID: PMC3722841 DOI: 10.1155/2013/740508
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Summary of researches using MRI images for measurement of the depths of acupuncture points.
| Authors and year | Subjects and sample size | Investigated acupuncture points and their body regions/meridians | Parameters used in comparison and related factors | Results, suggestions, and conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Li 2011 [ | 10 male, | BL18 | Gender, angle, side, BL, BW, BMI, and thumb cun | (1) Male subjects had greater safe depth (mean 25.1 mm versus 22.52 mm) |
|
| ||||
| Fu 2011 [ | 10 male, | BL20 | Gender, angle, side, BL, BW, and BMI | (1) No side differences |
|
| ||||
| Chuan 2011 [ | 10 male, | BL19 | Gender, angle, BL, BW, and BMI | (1) The male subject had greater safe depth of perpendicular needling |
|
| ||||
| Yen 2011 [ | 10 male, | BL17 | Gender, angle, side, BL, BW, and BMI | (1) No obvious side difference |
|
| ||||
|
Han 2010 [ | 10 male, | SP21 | Gender, angle, BL, BW, BMI, body cun | (1) The safe needling angle should be about 15 degrees towards the skin surface |
|
| ||||
| Yu 2010 [ | 10 male, | CV14, ST19 | Gender, angle, BL, BW, BMI, and body cun | (1) No gender differences in both points |
|
| ||||
| Ho 2010 [ | 10 male, | ST18, GB24 | Gender, angle, side, and BMI | (1) No side difference for ST18 |
|
| ||||
| Wu 2010 [ | 10 male, | LR14 | Gender, angle, side, and BMI | (1) Perpendicular needling depth was greater in female subjects |
|
| ||||
|
Dong 2010 [ | 10 male, | CV15, CV13 | Gender, angle, BL, BW, BMI, and body cun | (1) The safe depth for CV15 ranged from 16.99 to 53.47 mm with no gender difference |
|
| ||||
| Wang 2009 [ | 11 male, | BL10 | Gender, side, angle, BL, BW, neck girth, and thumb cun | (1) No side and angle differences noted in both groups |
|
| ||||
| Chang 2009 [ | 11 male, | GB20 | Gender, angle, BL, BW, BMI, neck girth, and head girth | (1) The needling direction towards the nose tip would be the safest way |
|
| ||||
| Bai 2009 [ | 11 male, | GV16 | Gender, angle, BL, BW, BMI, neck girth, and thumb cun | (1) Male subjects had greater depth with various needling angles |
|
| ||||
| Wu 2009 [ | 11 male, | BL1, ST1 | Gender | (1) The safe depth was defined as the 75% of dangerous depth |
|
| ||||
|
Lu 2009 [ | 11 male, | GV15 | Gender, angle, side, BL, BW, BMI, neck girth, and thumb cun | (1) Perpendicular needling depth was greater in males |
Summary of researches using in vivo evaluation methods in real subjects.
| Authors and year | Subjects and sample size | Investigated acupuncture points and their body regions/meridians | Parameters used in comparison and related factors | Results, suggestions, and conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Groenemeyer | 58 patients with low back pain | BL25, BL26 | BMI | (1) An association between de-qi and needle location existed |
|
| ||||
| Streitberger et al. 2007 [ | 50 patients receiving acupuncture including PC6 bilaterally (97 wrists) | PC6 | Nerve penetrated or contacted | (1) Association between nerve contact and de-qi was discussed. De-qi was elicited in 85 cases. No association between the number of nerve contacts and de-qi was found |
|
| ||||
| Dong et al. 2004 [ | 32 adults and 10 cadavers | 7 points from bladder meridian (2nd side line) | Rohrer index: <1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5, side | (1) No side difference |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. 2004 [ | 32 adults and 10 cadavers | 7 points from bladder meridian (1st side line) | Rohrer index: <1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5, side, and needling angles | (1) No side difference |
|
| ||||
| He et al. 2004 [ | 40 patients of HIVD of C spine | GV14 | BL, BW, and AW | (1) Depth ranges 36–75 mm with a mean of 54.6 mm. The safe depth should be within 36 mm |
|
| ||||
| Lin 1997 [ | 80 cadavers (including 30 newborns) and 240 adults for safety depth; 300 real subjects for de-qi depth | all back bladder meridian points and chest points | Gender, Tong Shen Cun, BL, BW (normal, over- and underweight) DQ, and AW | (1) Depths were deeper as compared to ancient writings. The depths highly correlated with body thickness and Tong Shen Cun |
|
| ||||
|
Lin and Wang | 300 adults | Total of 75 acupoints in head, neck, trunk and lower limb | Gender, BW, and DQ | (1) Discussed de-qi depth but not safe depth |
|
| ||||
| Lin 1991 [ | 107 adults | Acupoints in the chest and back of subjects receiving acupuncture therapy | Gender, BW (normal, over- and underweight), BL, and DQ | (1) Overweight group had the greatest de-qi depth |
Summary of researches using CT scan images for measurement of the depths of acupuncture points.
| Authors and year | Subjects and sample size | Investigated acupuncture points and their body regions/meridians | Parameters used in comparison and related factors | Results, suggestions, and conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chen et al. 2009 [ | 204 pediatric patients aged 7–15 | 12 abdominal acupuncture points CV-3, CV-4, CV-6, CV-10, CV-12, CV-14, KI-12, ST-24, ST-25, SP-15 LV-13, and LV-4 | Gender, age, BW, and waist girth | (1) Using the therapeutic depth over safety depth ratio (T/S ratio) as the indicator of therapeutic depth |
|
| ||||
| Groenemeyer et al. 2009 [ | 58 patients with low back pain | BL25, BL26 | BMI | (1) An association between de-qi and needle location existed |
|
| ||||
| Yang et al. 2008 [ | 41 adults | GV16 | Rohrer index | (1) The safe needling depth should be less than 75% of the dangerous depth |
|
| ||||
| Chen et al. 2008 [ | 219 pediatric patients aged 7–15 | 12 acupoints along the conception vessel (CV): CV-2 to CV-7 and CV-9 to CV-14 | Gender, age, BW, and waist girth | (1) The safe depth of 12 acupoints significantly increased with age, body weight, and waist girth in pediatric patients aged 7–15 |
|
| ||||
| Chern et al. 2006 [ | 32 adults | BL13 | Rohrer index (<1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5), side | (1) Right side points seemed to be deeper, especially in people with Rohrer index <1 |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. 2005 [ | 32 adults | GV14, SI15, GV5, and GV4 | Rohrer index: <1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5 | The safe depths (75% of dangerous depths) were different for different somatotypes; for example, the needling depth for GV14 was 32.86 ± 3.96 mm for the thin person group and 47.93 ± 5.30 mm for the fat person group |
|
| ||||
| Dong et al. 2004 [ | 32 adults and 10 cadavers | 7 points from bladder meridian (2nd side line) | Rohrer index: <1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5, side | (1) No side difference |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. 2004 [ | 32 adults and 10 cadavers | 7 points from bladder meridian (1st side line) | Rohrer index: <1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5, side, and needling angles | (1) No side difference |
|
| ||||
| Lin 1997 [ | 80 cadavers (including 30 newborns) and 240 adults for safety depth; 300 real subjects for de-qi depth | All back bladder meridian points and chest points | Gender, Tong Shen Cun, BL, BW (normal, over- and underweight) DQ, and AW | (1) Depths were deeper as compared to ancient writings. The depths highly correlated with body thickness and Tong Shen Cun |
|
| ||||
| Sheu and Lin | 120 adults | 28 points in the chest from conception vessel, kidney meridian, stomach meridian, pericardium meridian, lung meridian, spleen meridian, and gallbladder meridian | gender, BW (normal, over- and underweight), and BL | (1) Significant differences in chest points within the same sex existed |
|
| ||||
| Lin et al. 1991 [ | 240 adults (120 in each group) | 22 points in the back; 28 points in the chest | Gender, BW (normal, over- and underweight), and BL | (1) No gender differences on back loci |
Summary of researches using ultrasound images for measurement of the depths of acupuncture points.
| Authors and year | Subjects and sample size | Investigated acupuncture points and their body regions/meridians | Parameters used in comparison and related factors | Results, suggestions, and conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lian 1995 [ | 89 adults | From BL11 to BL21 (11 points) | Gender, age, BL, BW, disease type, side, and AW | (1) Depths ranged 12–40 mm |
|
| ||||
| Streitberger et al. 2007 [ | 50 patients receiving acupuncture including PC6 bilaterally (97 wrists) | PC6 | Nerve penetrated or contacted DQ | (1) Association between nerve contact and de-qi was discussed. De-qi was elicited in 85 cases. No association between the number of nerve contacts and de-qi was found |
Summary of researches using dissected specimens of cadavers for measurement of the depths of acupuncture points.
| Authors and year | Subjects and sample size | Investigated acupuncture points and their body regions/meridians | Parameters used in comparison and related factors | Results, suggestions, and conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Oh et al. 2012 [ | 4 adult cadavers | PC6 | — | (1) The acupuncture needle should not be inserted deeply at PC6 in order to minimise the risk of trauma |
|
| ||||
| Wang et al. 2009 [ | 15 adult cadavers | ST7, SI18 | Side | (1) No side difference |
|
| ||||
| Xie et al. 2007 [ | 46 adult cadavers | SI14 and GV14 | Gender | (1) No gender difference |
|
| ||||
| Chen et al. 2007 [ | 46 cadavers | CV22, ST11 | — | (1) The needle not only easily injuried the upper pleural cavity but also damaged the big blood vessel, the vagus nerve in the mediastinum and the cervical root |
|
| ||||
| Xie et al. 2006 [ | 46 cadavers | ST12 | Gender, side | (1) No gender or side difference |
|
| ||||
| Xie et al. 2006 [ | 46 cadavers | BL12, BL13 | Gender, angles of needle insertion (15, 20, 25, 30, and 40 degrees) | (1) The mean dangerous depth for perpendicular insertion was 49.51 mm of BL12 and 44.88 mm of BL13 |
|
| ||||
| Xu et al. 2006 [ | 48 adult cadavers | BL1 | — | (1) The mean depth between the skin and the anterior ethmoidal artery was 18.25 ± 4.45 mm, with an angle of 12.5 ± 5.5 degrees |
|
| ||||
| Lou et al. 2006 [ | 80 limbs (40 cadavers) | ST36 | Angle | (1) Average depth was 2.22 cm |
|
| ||||
| Chen et al. 2006 [ | 46 cadavers | CV22, ST11, ST12, GB21, EX-B1, and BL11 | — | (1) Risk of pleural injury may existed when inserting needle perpendicularly in these points |
|
| ||||
| Dong et al. 2004 [ | 32 adults and 10 cadavers | 7 points from bladder meridian (2nd side line) | Rohrer index: <1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5, side | (1) No side difference |
|
| ||||
| Li et al. 2004 [ | 32 adults and 10 cadavers | 7 points from bladder meridian (1st side line) | Rohrer index: <1.2, 1.2–1.5, and >1.5, side, and needling angles | (1) No side difference |
|
| ||||
| Yan et al. 2004 [ | 51 cadavers | 74 points from neck, chest, back, and abdomen | Angles of insertion | (1) Safe depth should be less than 70% of dangerous depth |
|
| ||||
| Zhang et al. 2001 [ | 51 cadavers | 17 acupoints of abdomen | Gender, side | (1) The dangerous depth of most abdominal points were similar and within 11–17 mm |
|
| ||||
| Zhang et al. 2001 [ | 57 cadavers | ST12 | — | (1) The mean dangerous depths for perpendicular insertion downward was 38.34 mm |
|
| ||||
|
Piao and Zhong2001 [ | 6 cadavers | B2 (lumbar levels) | different lumbar vertebrae: L1–L5 | The depth ranged 4.2–5.75 cm in different lumbar levels with greater depths in lower lumbar levels |
|
| ||||
| Chen et al. 1998 [ | 20 adult cadavers | BL40 | Side | (1) Safe depth (from skin to tibial nerve): 15 mm for left side and 16 mm for right side, less than the depth from current used textbook |
|
| ||||
| Ge 1998 [ | 16 cadavers | GV15, GV16 | Thumb Tong Shen Cun | Safe depth of GV15 (42.46–55.86 mm) and GV16 (43.46–57.42 mm) correlated with thumb Tong Shen Cun |
|
| ||||
| Zhang et al. 1998 [ | 51 cadavers | Total of 28 acupoints in back and lumbar region | Gender, side | (1) No side difference in dangerous depth except BL17, BL18 for male and BL17 for female |
|
| ||||
| Zhang et al. 1998 [ | 51 cadavers | 23 chest points | Gender, side | (1) The average dangerous depths of 23 chest acupoints were obtained. KI27 had the greatest dangerous depth up to 26 mm. Others ranged from 11.87 to 17.64 mm |
|
| ||||
| Lin 1997 [ | 80 cadavers (including 30 newborns) and 240 adults for safety depth; 300 real subjects for de-qi depth | All back bladder meridian points and chest points | Gender, Tong Shen Cun, BL, BW (normal, over- and underweight) DQ, and AW | (1) Depths were deeper as compared to ancient writings. The depths highly correlated with body thickness and Tong Shen Cun |
|
| ||||
| Yan et al. 1996 [ | 51 cadavers | GV16, GV15, GB20, and BL1 | Gender, side | (1) The safe depths (80% of the measured depth) were GV16: 40.08 mm, GV15: 38.10 mm, GB20: 39.77 mm, and BL1: 34.25 mm |
Summary of researches involving the correlation between therapeutic effect and needling depth.
| Authors and year | Subjects and sample size | Investigated acupuncture points and their body regions/meridians | Parameters used in comparison and related factors | Results, suggestions, and conclusions |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| He et al. 2012 [ | 63 subjects with trigeminal neuralgia (32 in deep and 31 in shallow puncturing group) | ST7, LI4, LV3, BL2, ST2, and Jiacheng Jiang | Pain index (VAS), traditional Chinese medicine symptoms index, and clinical therapeutic effect | (1) The total effective rate was 93.8% in deep puncturing group, superior to that of 87.1% in shallow puncturing group |
|
| ||||
| Park et al. 2011 [ | 5 participants | LI13, LU4 and 2 control points | Needling depth, needle rotation, and oscillation | (1) Pilot study using ultrasound tried to explore the correlation between de-qi sensation and needling depth/needle manipulation |
|
| ||||
| Skjeie et al. 2011 | 7 randomized patients (3 in placebo group and 4 in acupuncture treatment group) | ST36 | Bilateral insertion at ST36 at the depth of 12 mm, reduction of crying time from baseline | (1) A pilot, open, randomized, and single-blinded controlled trial to assess the feasibility of acupuncture treatment for infantile colic |
|
| ||||
|
Lu and Tang 2011 [ | 21 cases of irritable bowel syndrome of diarrhea | IR13, CV12, ST25, CV4, LR14, LI11, LI4, SP9, ST36, and LR3 | The scale for the severity degree of symptom (IBS-SSS) | (1) Various needling depths ranged 2–12 mm as documented in Lingshu (Miraculous Pivot) |
|
| ||||
| Itoh et al. 2011 [ | 22 healthy volunteers | Tender point in the extensor digital muscle, in the skin, and in the nonsegmental limb (anterior tibial muscle) | Pressure pain threshold, electrical pain threshold, and needling depth (3 mm to 10 mm) | (1) Randomized controlled trial |
|
| ||||
| Chen et al. 2009 [ | 204 pediatric patients aged 7–15 | 12 abdominal acupuncture points CV-3, CV-4, CV-6, CV-10, CV-12, CV-14, KI-12, ST-24, ST-25, SP-15 LV-13, and LV-4 | Gender, age, BW, and waist girth | (1) Using the therapeutic depth over safety depth ratio (T/S ratio) as the indicator of therapeutic depth |
|
| ||||
| Groenemeyer et al. 2009 [ | 58 patients with low back pain | BL25, BL26 | BMI | (1) An association between de-qi and needle location existed |
|
| ||||
| Streitberger et al. 2007 [ | 50 patients receiving acupuncture including PC6 bilaterally (97 wrists) | PC6 | Nerve penetrated or contacted | (1) Association between nerve contact and de-qi was discussed. De-qi was elicited in 85 cases. No association between the number of nerve contacts and de-qi was found |
|
| ||||
| Lin 1997 [ | 80 cadavers (including 30 newborns) and 240 adults for safety depth; 300 real subjects for de-qi depth | All back bladder meridian points and chest points | Gender, Tong Shen Cun, BL, BW (normal, over and under-weight) DQ, and AW | (1) Depths were deeper as compared to ancient writings. The depths highly correlated with body thickness and Tong Shen Cun |
|
| ||||
|
Lin and Wang 1994 [ | 300 adults | Total of 75 acupoints in head, neck, trunk, and lower limb | Gender, BW, and DQ | (1) Discussed de-qi depth but not safe depth |
|
| ||||
| Lin 1991 [ | 107 adults | Acupoints in the chest and back of subjects receiving acupuncture therapy | Gender, BW (normal, over- and underweight), BL, and DQ | (1) Overweight group had the greatest de-qi depth |
Mean values for needling depths of acupoints in the chest in different-sized male subjects.
| Acupoints | Overweight adults | Normal adults | Underweight adults |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | ||
| Tiantu (CV22) | 3.94 ± 0.19 | 2.87 ± 0.26 | 2.34 ± 0.65 | 19.61* |
| Xuanji (CV21) | 0.94 ± 0.11 | 0.64 ± 0.10 | 2.30 ± 0.10 | 38.22* |
| Huagai (CV20) | 0.89 ± 0.11 | 0.057 ± 0.10 | 0.25 ± 0.10 | 39.46* |
| Zigong (CV19) | 0.89 ± 0.11 | 0.60 ± 0.10 | 0.29 ± 0.10 | 35.79* |
| Yutang (CV18) | 0.88 ± 0.14 | 0.53 ± 0.10 | 0.28 ± 0.09 | 31.32* |
| Danzhong (CV17) | 0.86 ± 0.11 | 0.52 ± 0.11 | 0.25 ± 0.09 | 36.96* |
| Zhongting (CV16) | 0.95 ± 0.14 | 0.56 ± 0.13 | 0.34 ± 0.11 | 25.57* |
| Shufu (KI27) | 4.19 ± 0.46 | 3.29 ± 0.48 | 2.32 ± 0.49 | 16.20* |
| Yuzhong (KI26) | 2.98 ± 0.27 | 2.20 ± 0.25 | 1.50 ± 0.27 | 34.18* |
| Shencang (KI25) | 2.59 ± 0.21 | 2.00 ± 0.21 | 1.26 ± 0.22 | 42.93* |
| Lingxu (KI24) | 2.56 ± 0.17 | 2.13 ± 0.23 | 1.49 ± 0.19 | 32.09* |
| Shenfeng (KI23) | 2.47 ± 0.17 | 1.96 ± 0.17 | 1.44 ± 0.17 | 40.78* |
| Bulang (KI22) | 2.33 ± 0.15 | 1.95 ± 0.17 | 1.46 ± 0.15 | 33.64* |
| Qihu (ST13) | 5.24 ± 0.48 | 4.15 ± 0.55 | 2.88 ± 0.47 | 23.71* |
| Kufang (ST14) | 3.82 ± 0.36 | 3.10 ± 0.31 | 2.02 ± 0.29 | 32.21* |
| Wuyi (ST15) | 3.11 ± 0.27 | 2.64 ± 0.52 | 1.38 ± 0.17 | 26.51* |
| Yingchuang (ST16) | 2.78 ± 0.21 | 2.35 ± 0.53 | 1.33 ± 0.22 | 19.52* |
| Ruzhong (ST17) | 2.59 ± 0.19 | 2.07 ± 0.38 | 1.23 ± 0.20 | 27.28* |
| Rugen (ST18) | 2.27 ± 0.16 | 1.78 ± 0.22 | 1.19 ± 0.20 | 33.89* |
| Tianchi (PC1) | 2.64 ± 0.21 | 2.25 ± 0.72 | 1.18 ± 0.21 | 11.97* |
| Yunmen (LU1) | 6.73 ± 0.55 | 5.14 ± 0.57 | 3.26 ± 0.79 | 32.78* |
| Zhongfu (LU2) | 5.05 ± 0.62 | 3.69 ± 0.47 | 2.20 ± 0.70 | 24.06* |
| Zhourong (SP20) | 3.71 ± 0.50 | 2.70 ± 0.35 | 1.68 ± 0.51 | 21.06* |
| Xiongxiang (SP19) | 3.15 ± 0.37 | 2.26 ± 0.23 | 1.53 ± 0.43 | 23.38* |
| Tianxi (SP18) | 2.88 ± 0.29 | 2.05 ± 0.25 | 1.32 ± 0.19 | 40.68* |
| Shidou (SP17) | 2.61 ± 0.21 | 1.91 ± 0.22 | 1.28 ± 0.18 | 45.01* |
| Zhejin (GB23) | 3.48 ± 0.39 | 2.43 ± 0.26 | 1.73 ± 0.37 | 28.00* |
| Yuanye (GB22) | 4.52 ± 0.41 | 3.07 ± 0.34 | 2.20 ± 0.33 | 43.58* |
X: mean depth; units are provided in centimeters.
X ± 1.96 SD: 95% confidence interval.
*P < 0.01; F is the statistic for one-way ANOVA.
The definitions for “Overweight adults,” “Normal adults,” and “Underweight adults” are following the guidance of the Department of Health, Taiwan: “The suggested ideal body weight of Taiwanese people.” As such, readers from outside Taiwan should bear in mind that ideal body weights differ between countries. The specified needling depths in the table are a suggested guide only.
Mean values for needling depths of acupoints in the chest in different-sized female subjects.
| Acupoints | Overweight adults | Normal adults | Underweight adults |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | ||
| Tiantu (CV22) | 4.46 ± 0.42 | 3.69 ± 0.46 | 3.01 ± 0.80 | 7.39* |
| Xuanji (CV21) | 1.37 ± 0.27 | 1.03 ± 0.25 | 0.41 ± 0.33 | 9.81* |
| Huagai (CV20) | 1.18 ± 0.29 | 0.88 ± 0.23 | 0.49 ± 0.38 | 5.24* |
| Zigong (CV19) | 1.32 ± 0.24 | 0.97 ± 0.19 | 0.50 ± 0.40 | 9.73* |
| Yutang (CV18) | 1.42 ± 0.25 | 1.00 ± 0.20 | 0.56 ± 0.46 | 9.89* |
| Danzhong (CV17) | 1.55 ± 0.23 | 1.07 ± 0.22 | 0.71 ± 0.57 | 8.63* |
| Zhongting (CV16) | 1.75 ± 0.003 | 1.41 ± 0.32 | 0.90 ± 0.76 | 4.17* |
| Shufu (KI27) | 4.31 ± 0.72 | 3.36 ± 0.47 | 2.23 ± 0.46 | 9.90* |
| Yuzhong (KI26) | 2.93 ± 0.44 | 2.46 ± 0.33 | 1.53 ± 0.55 | 9.31* |
| Shencang (KI25) | 2.69 ± 0.39 | 2.29 ± 0.29 | 1.53 ± 0.46 | 8.35* |
| Lingxu (KI24) | 2.70 ± 0.35 | 2.40 ± 0.26 | 1.69 ± 0.57 | 7.19* |
| Shenfeng (KI23) | 2.89 ± 0.32 | 2.46 ± 0.24 | 1.79 ± 0.60 | 9.52* |
| Bulang (KI22) | 2.95 ± 0.30 | 2.49 ± 0.23 | 1.79 ± 0.45 | 11.15* |
| Qihu (ST13) | 4.73 ± 0.77 | 3.75 ± 0.57 | 2.46 ± 1.10 | 8.14* |
| Kufang (ST14) | 3.51 ± 0.51 | 3.04 ± 0.45 | 2.06 ± 1.07 | 5.52* |
| Wuyi (ST15) | 3.05 ± 0.52 | 2.72 ± 0.38 | 1.76 ± 0.82 | 5.61* |
| Yingchuang (ST16) | 2.94 ± 0.47 | 2.66 ± 0.37 | 1.90 ± 0.78 | 4.08* |
| Ruzhong (ST17) | 2.91 ± 0.42 | 2.58 ± 0.33 | 1.93 ± 0.62 | 4.73* |
| Rugen (ST18) | 2.9200 ± 0.4038 | 2.444 ± 0.3052 | 1.6857 ± 0.5636 | 9.4451* |
| Tianchi (PC1) | 3.34 ± 0.69 | 2.86 ± 0.37 | 1.89 ± 0.73 | 5.37* |
| Yunmen (LU1) | 5.84 ± 0.79 | 4.42 ± 0.76 | 3.51 ± 1.59 | 6.52* |
| Zhongfu (LU2) | 4.43 ± 0.55 | 3.74 ± 0.47 | 2.81 ± 1.45 | 5.39* |
| Zhourong (SP20) | 3.82 ± 0.59 | 3.49 ± 0.46 | 2.37 ± 1.15 | 4.72* |
| Xiongxiang (SP19) | 3.70 ± 0.53 | 3.31 ± 0.42 | 2.23 ± 0.82 | 6.40* |
| Tianxi (SP18) | 3.41 ± 0.53 | 3.06 ± 0.44 | 2.07 ± 0.79 | 5.25* |
| Shidou (SP17) | 3.34 ± 0.53 | 2.80 ± 0.40 | 1.83 ± 0.72 | 7.49* |
| Zhejin (GB23) | 3.63 ± 0.57 | 3.43 ± 0.43 | 2.24 ± 0.99 | 5.24* |
| Yuanye (GB22) | 4.06 ± 0.64 | 3.72 ± 0.54 | 2.39 ± 1.08 | 5.48* |
X: mean depth; units are provided in centimeters.
X ± 1.96 SD: 95% confidence interval.
*P < 0.01; F is the statistic for one-way ANOVA.
The definitions for “Overweight adults,” “Normal adults,” and “Underweight adults” are following the guidance of the Department of Health, Taiwan: “The suggested ideal body weight of Taiwanese people.” As such, readers from outside Taiwan should bear in mind that ideal body weights differ between countries. The specified needling depths in the table are a suggested guide only.
Mean values for needling depths of acupoints in the back from different-sized male subjects.
| Acupoints | Overweight adults | Normal adults | Underweight adults |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | ||
| Dazhui (GV14) | 6.76 ± 0.41 | 5.39 ± 0.40 | 4.81 ± 0.54 | 20.90* |
| Taodao (GV13) | 6.35 ± 0.40 | 5.24 ± 0.40 | 4.66 ± 0.47 | 17.03* |
| Shenzhu (GV12) | 5.39 ± 0.37 | 4.79 ± 0.35 | 4.10 ± 0.34 | 14.13* |
| Shendao (GV11) | 4.86 ± 0.32 | 4.30 ± 0.30 | 3.65 ± 0.23 | 18.95* |
| Lingtai (GV10) | 4.88 ± 0.32 | 4.27 ± 0.30 | 3.56 ± 0.21 | 22.69* |
| Zhiyang (GV9) | 4.86 ± 0.33 | 4.20 ± 0.27 | 3.47 ± 0.19 | 27.32* |
| Jianzhongshu (SI15) | 7.43 ± 0.50 | 6.47 ± 0.59 | 5.77 ± 0.70 | 8.18* |
| Dazhu (BL11) | 6.98 ± 0.54 | 6.19 ± 0.49 | 5.36 ± 0.79 | 7.33* |
| Fengmen (BL12) | 6.21 ± 0.50 | 5.53 ± 0.47 | 5.08 ± 0.77 | 3.95* |
| Feishu (BL13) | 5.70 ± 0.49 | 5.15 ± 0.48 | 4.67 ± 0.66 | 3.73* |
| Jueyinshu (BL14) | 5.37 ± 0.47 | 4.76 ± 0.41 | 4.39 ± 0.57 | 4.42* |
| Xinshu (BL15) | 5.04 ± 0.67 | 4.54 ± 0.43 | 4.27 ± 0.50 | 2.25* |
| Dushu (BL16) | 5.18 ± 0.47 | 4.52 ± 0.48 | 4.13 ± 0.45 | 5.34* |
| Geshu (BL17) | 5.30 ± 0.47 | 4.55 ± 0.46 | 4.18 ± 0.47 | 6.28* |
| Jianwaishu (SI14) | 6.05 ± 0.39 | 5.39 ± 0.43 | 5.00 ± 0.63 | 4.79* |
| Fufen (BL41) | 5.10 ± 0.45 | 4.37 ± 0.37 | 4.38 ± 0.59 | 3.40* |
| Pohu (BL42) | 4.40 ± 0.37 | 3.75 ± 0.35 | 3.56 ± 0.50 | 5.06* |
| Gaohuang (BL43) | 3.98 ± 0.35 | 3.34 ± 0.35 | 2.98 ± 0.41 | 7.99* |
| Shentang (BL44) | 3.75 ± 0.36 | 2.98 ± 0.30 | 2.57 ± 0.35 | 13.39* |
| Yixi (BL45) | 3.70 ± 0.46 | 2.76 ± 0.28 | 2.28 ± 0.37 | 16.03* |
| Geguan (BL46) | 3.66 ± 0.45 | 2.63 ± 0.28 | 2.33 ± 0.36 | 15.08* |
| Quyuan (SI13) | 5.36 ± 0.32 | 4.76 ± 0.35 | 4.31 ± 0.42 | 8.78* |
X: mean depth; units are provided in centimeters.
X ± 1.96 SD: 95% confidence interval.
*P < 0.01; F is the statistic for one-way ANOVA.
The definitions for “Overweight adults,” “Normal adults,” and “Underweight adults” are following the guidance of the Department of Health, Taiwan: “The suggested ideal body weight of Taiwanese people.” As such, readers from outside Taiwan should bear in mind that ideal body weights differ between countries. The specified needling depths in the table are a suggested guide only.
Mean values for needling depths of acupoints in the back in different-sized female subjects.
| Acupoints | Overweight adults | Normal adults | Underweight adults |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | Mean ± 95% C.I. | ||
| Dazhui (GV14) | 6.37 ± 0.71 | 5.21 ± 0.70 | 4.35 ± 0.19 | 5.91* |
| Taodao (GV13) | 6.01 ± 0.45 | 4.97 ± 0.58 | 4.13 ± 0.88 | 8.58* |
| Shenzhu (GV12) | 5.36 ± 0.35 | 4.40 ± 0.39 | 3.60 ± 0.64 | 15.31* |
| Shendao (GV11) | 5.01 ± 0.38 | 3.97 ± 0.30 | 3.40 ± 0.64 | 18.12* |
| Lingtai (GV10) | 4.89 ± 0.35 | 3.83 ± 0.28 | 3.28 ± 0.63 | 21.03* |
| Zhiyang (GV9) | 4.90 ± 0.41 | 3.86 ± 0.29 | 3.37 ± 0.67 | 15.06* |
| Jianzhongshu (SI15) | 6.62 ± 0.48 | 5.87 ± 0.62 | 4.15 ± 1.36 | 10.43* |
| Dazhu (BL11) | 6.42 ± 0.53 | 5.39 ± 0.62 | 4.27 ± 0.96 | 8.77* |
| Fengmen (BL12) | 5.83 ± 0.39 | 4.78 ± 0.61 | 4.13 ± 1.08 | 6.97* |
| Feishu (BL13) | 5.32 ± 0.38 | 4.43 ± 0.46 | 4.03 ± 0.97 | 6.66* |
| Jueyinshu (BL14) | 5.07 ± 0.47 | 4.25 ± 0.43 | 3.73 ± 0.87 | 6.40* |
| Xinshu (BL15) | 4.91 ± 0.51 | 3.97 ± 0.32 | 3.63 ± 0.88 | 8.36* |
| Dushu (BL16) | 4.90 ± 0.49 | 3.86 ± 0.30 | 3.63 ± 0.80 | 10.35* |
| Geshu (BL17) | 4.91 ± 0.47 | 3.92 ± 0.37 | 3.58 ± 0.92 | 8.57* |
| Jianwaishu (SI14) | 5.57 ± 0.41 | 4.91 ± 0.48 | 3.85 ± 0.81 | 8.83* |
| Fufen (BL41) | 4.85 ± 0.31 | 4.07 ± 0.42 | 3.07 ± 0.85 | 12.60* |
| Pohu (BL42) | 4.35 ± 0.28 | 3.53 ± 0.31 | 2.60 ± 0.74 | 19.67* |
| Gaohuang (BL43) | 3.96 ± 0.32 | 3.15 ± 0.31 | 2.30 ± 0.61 | 18.00* |
| Shentang (BL44) | 3.67 ± 0.35 | 2.75 ± 0.27 | 2.02 ± 0.48 | 21.33* |
| Yixi (BL45) | 3.59 ± 0.37 | 2.56 ± 0.23 | 1.88 ± 0.54 | 24.99* |
| Geguan (BL46) | 3.59 ± 0.40 | 2.53 ± 0.28 | 1.78 ± 0.49 | 22.77* |
| Quyuan (SI13) | 5.16 ± 0.37 | 4.32 ± 0.39 | 3.08 ± 0.58 | 18.83* |
X: mean depth; units are provided in centimeters.
X ± 1.96 SD: 95% confidence interval.
*P < 0.01; F is the statistic for one-way ANOVA.
The definitions for “Overweight adults,” “Normal adults,” and “Underweight adults” are following the guidance of the Department of Health, Taiwan: “The suggested ideal body weight of Taiwanese people.” As such, readers from outside Taiwan should bear in mind that ideal body weights differ between countries. The specified needling depths in the table are a suggested guide only.