| Literature DB >> 23983794 |
Zhao-Hui Liang1, Chang-Cai Xie, Zi-Ping Li, Xiao-Ping Zhu, Ai-Ping Lu, Wen-Bin Fu.
Abstract
Objective. To evaluate the similarity of deqi sensation of real and noninvasive placebo acupuncture in healthy people with knowledge of Chinese medicine. Methods. In a crossover design, volunteers recruited from Chinese medicine college students were randomized to two groups to receive two phases of intervention with a one-week washout interval. In Group A, the participants were firstly treated by real acupuncture and then by sham needle, and the treatment sequence was reversed in Group B. VAS for pain intensity and deqi sensation was evaluated as outcomes. Results. Sixty-three volunteers were recruited and 60 were included and finished the study. In Group A, VAS was higher in Phase I than in Phase II (P = 0.017). Only treatment methods were selected as factor to VAS difference (P = 0.046) in ANOVA test. More positive deqi was reported in Group A in Phase I when treated by real acupuncture (P = 0.039), but the difference was not significant in Phase II (P = 0.301). Conclusion. The noninvasive placebo acupuncture device can effetely simulate the deqi sensation as real acupuncture, but it is less likely to evoke the active effect of deqi in real practice. This trial is registered with Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-ORC-09000505.Entities:
Year: 2013 PMID: 23983794 PMCID: PMC3745883 DOI: 10.1155/2013/620671
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Evid Based Complement Alternat Med ISSN: 1741-427X Impact factor: 2.629
Figure 1The mechanism of noninvasive sham needle.
Figure 2Sham acupuncture.
Figure 3Real acupuncture.
Figure 4Flowchart of study procedure.
Baseline comparison of demographic data.
| Comparison item | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Sex (%) | |||
| Male | 8 (26.7) | 4 (13.3) | 0.197* |
| Female | 22 (73.3) | 26 (86.7) | |
| Age | |||
| Mean (SD) | 23.13 (0.62) | 22.93 (0.58) | 0.201# |
*Chi-square test, χ 2 = 1.667.
#Mann-Whitney test, Z = −1.277.
SD: standard deviation.
VAS score in intervention Phase I and Phase II.
| Mean (SD) |
| ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Group B | ||
| Between group comparison | |||
| Phase I | 1.43 (1.61) | 2.33 (1.89) | 0.053* |
| Phase II | 2.60 (2.29) | 1.99 (2.02) | 0.282** |
| Within group comparison | |||
|
| 0.017# | 0.690## | |
*Independent-samples t-test, t = 1.976. **Independent samples t-test, t = −1.087.
#Paired-samples t-test, t = −2.745. ##Paired-samples t-test, t = 0.580.
ANOVA test for crossover effects.
| Source of variance |
|
|
|---|---|---|
| Treatment method | 4.140 | 0.046 |
| Treatment sequence | 1.736 | 0.193 |
| Subject | 3.441 | 0.687 |
Report of deqi feeling.
| Perception of deqi | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Between-group comparison | |||
| Intervention Phase I | |||
| Yes | 19 (63.3) | 11 (36.7) | 0.039* |
| No | 11 (36.7) | 19 (63.3) | |
| Intervention Phase II | |||
| Yes | 12 (40.0) | 16 (53.3) | 0.301** |
| No | 18 (60.0) | 14 (46.7) | |
| Within-group comparison | |||
|
| 0.143# | 0.332# |
*Chi-square test, χ 2 = 4.267, **Chi-square test, χ 2 = 1.071.
#McNemar test.
Report of skin penetrated feeling.
| Perception of skin penetrated | Group A | Group B |
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Between-group comparison | |||
| Intervention Phase I | |||
| Yes | 21 (70.0) | 23 (76.7) | 0.559* |
| No | 9 (30.0) | 7 (23.3) | |
| Intervention Phase II | |||
| Yes | 25 (83.3) | 23 (76.7) | 0.519** |
| No | 5 (16.7) | 7 (23.3) | |
| Within-group comparison | |||
|
| 0.424# | 1.000# |
*Chi-square test, χ 2 = 0.341, **Chi-square test, χ 2 = 0.417.
#McNemar test.