| Literature DB >> 28673350 |
Shohreh Razavy1, Marcus Gadau2, Shi Ping Zhang3, Fu Chun Wang4, Sergio Bangrazi5, Christine Berle1, Mahrita Harahap1, Tie Li4, Wei Hong Li1, Christopher Zaslawski1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The psychophysical responses induced by verum acupuncture are characterized by a constellation of unique subjective sensory responses commonly termed De Qi. Furthermore, a variety of sham interventions have been used as a control for acupuncture clinical trials. Indeed, one such control has been mock laser which has been used as control intervention in several acupuncture clinical controlled trials. The current study aim was to examine the De Qi sensory responses and its related characteristics elicited from acupuncture and compare them to those reported following sham laser in participants enrolled in a clinical trial.Entities:
Keywords: Acupuncture; De Qi; Interoceptive; Mock laser; Psychophysical responses
Mesh:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28673350 PMCID: PMC5496139 DOI: 10.1186/s12906-017-1859-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Complement Altern Med ISSN: 1472-6882 Impact factor: 3.659
Fig. 1Flowchart of the trial
Inclusion and exclusion criteria used to select participants for the clinical trial
| Inclusion criteria | Exclusion criteria |
|---|---|
| Age 18-80 | Central or peripheral nervous system disease |
| Men and women | Inflammatory rheumatic diseases |
| Chronic lateral elbow pain | Gout |
| (Duration ≥3 months) | Earlier episodes of lateral elbow pain treated surgically or with; |
| Unilateral localization | – Acupuncture treatment or physiotherapy for tennis elbow within the previous 3 months, |
| – Acupuncture treatment for any problems within the previous week, | |
| – Concurrent physiotherapy for tennis elbow. |
Fig. 2a indicated the manual needle manipulation at acupoint LI11 followed by LI10 on the affected side. First time Manipulation (M1); Second time Manipulation (M2); Rest period (R). b indicated the use of inactive mock laser probe on the same acupoints to acupuncture group at different time interval; First time Probe Touch (PT1); Second time Probe Touch (PT2); Rest period (R)
Fig. 3a and b MASS De Qi Index (MDI) scores for the treatment and control group at session 1 and session 9 respectively, (n = 47 for the treatment group, n = 37 for the control group). The boxes are bound by the interquartile range (IQR) (top of the box represents the 75th percentile, while the bottom of the box represents the 25th percentile). The boxes are divided by the median, and the whiskers attached to the box represent the minimum and maximum scores. ***: statistically significant difference (p < 0.001) between the two groups
Fig. 4a and b MASS De Qi difference among trial sites for the acupuncture group a and the mock laser group b individually. The box plots demonstrate comparison of the MASS De Qi median scores between the four trial sites for both the acupuncture group (HK = 22, AUS = 24, CHA = 24, ITY = 24) and the mock laser group (HK = 26, AUS = 24, ITY = 24). One trial site (China) did not collect data for the mock laser group. Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used. Pairwise comparison demonstrated statistically significant differences in the MDI scores across different trial sites (Kruskal-Wallis Rank Sum test, * p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001; 2-tailed). Extreme values and outliers lied beyond the whiskers and denoted differently with a star and a circle respectively
Comparison of the frequency of individual De Qi characteristics between the two study groups
| De Qi characteristics | Acupuncture | Mock Laser | Fisher’s Exact p | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | % | Count | % | ||
| 1.Soreness | 87 | 92.5 | 32 | 43.9 | .000*** |
| 2.Aching | 87 | 92.5 | 34 | 45.9 | .000*** |
| 3.Deep Pressure | 81 | 86.0 | 30 | 40.6 | .000*** |
| 4.Heaviness | 76 | 80.8 | 29 | 39.2 | .000*** |
| 5.Fullness/Distention | 76 | 80.8 | 27 | 36.1 | .000*** |
| 6.Tingling | 66 | 70.2 | 37 | 50.0 | .004** |
| 7.Numbness | 73 | 78.5 | 32 | 43.2 | .000*** |
| 8.Sharp Pain | 57 | 60.7 | 33 | 44.6 | .002** |
| 9.Dull Pain | 57 | 60.6 | 26 | 36.2 | .000*** |
| 10.Warmth | 32 | 34.0 | 14 | 19.2 | .020* |
| 11.Cold | 47 | 50.0 | 15 | 20.4 | .000*** |
| 12.Throbbing | 27 | 35.5 | 8 | 11.0 | .001** |
In all cases the expected frequencies were less than five in each cell and therefore Fisher Exact test was displayed, * p<0.05, **p <0.01, ***p <0.001
Fig. 5Comparison of the frequency of individual De Qi psychophysical responses during acupuncture and mock laser intervention. Data for weeks were pooled together. Frequencies calculated upon the number of participants reporting perceptions within each study arm (n = 47 for the acupuncture group, n = 37 for the mock laser group). Data related to mock laser group (Centre 3) was excluded from data analysis. Each De Qi characteristic was shown on a Likert scale rating (0-10); In all cases the expected frequencies were less than five in each cell and therefore Fisher Exact test was used, * p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Comparison of the individual De Qi characteristics across the study sites between the two study groups
| Centre1 | Centre2 | Centre 3Ɨ | Centre 4 | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture | M. Laser | Acupuncture | M. Laser | Acupuncture | Acupuncture | M. Laser | Fisher’s Exact Test | |||||||||||
| De Qi Characteristics |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | Χ2 Acup. |
| Χ2 Laser |
|
| 1. Soreness | 22 | 99.5 | 13 | 50 | 21 | 87.5 | 1 | 4.2 | 24 | 91.6 | 20 | 83 | 18 | 78.3 | 45.4 | .000*** | 34.6 | .000*** |
| 2. Aching | 22 | 100 | 10 | 38.4 | 24 | 95.8 | 2 | 8.3 | 22 | 91.7 | 20 | 83.4 | 22 | 91.7 | 44.6 | .000*** | 40.7 | .000*** |
| 3. Deep Pressure | 22 | 100 | 11 | 46.1 | 21 | 87.5 | 2 | 8.3 | 22 | 100 | 14 | 58.3 | 16 | 66.7 | 26.7 | .001** | 22.1 | .000*** |
| 4. Heaviness | 22 | 100 | 9 | 34.6 | 19 | 79.2 | 3 | 12.5 | 24 | 100 | 11 | 45.9 | 17 | 70.9 | 36.6 | .000*** | 25.2 | .000*** |
| 5. Fullness/Dis. | 22 | 100 | 13 | 50 | 15 | 62.5 | 2 | 8.3 | 24 | 100 | 15 | 62.6 | 12 | 50 | 48 | .000*** | 18.4 | .001** |
| 6. Tingling | 22 | 100 | 12 | 46.1 | 17 | 70.9 | 9 | 37.5 | 14 | 58.4 | 13 | 52.2 | 16 | 66.7 | 37.9 | .000*** | 12.2 | .010* |
| 7. Numbness | 21 | 100 | 16 | 61.5 | 14 | 58.4 | 3 | 12.5 | 22 | 91.7 | 16 | 66.7 | 13 | 54.2 | 37.7 | .000*** | 14.9 | .002** |
| 8. Sharp Pain | 19 | 86.4 | 10 | 38.5 | 20 | 83.4 | 3 | 12.5 | 3 | 12.5 | 15 | 62.5 | 20 | 83.3 | 48.2 | .000*** | 26.4 | .000*** |
| 9. Dull Pain | 18 | 79.8 | 11 | 45.9 | 20 | 83.3 | 2 | 8.3 | 1 | 4.2 | 18 | 75 | 13 | 54.2 | 47.6 | .000*** | 18.8 | .001** |
| 10. Warmth | 11 | 50 | 5 | 20 | 15 | 62.5 | 9 | 37.5 | 0 | 0 | 6 | 25 | 0 | 0 | 32.3 | .000*** | 17.5 | .000*** |
| 11. Cold | 22 | 100 | 7 | 26.8 | 11 | 45.8 | 3 | 12.5 | 2 | 8.3 | 12 | 50 | 5 | 20 | 57.9 | .000*** | 4.4 | .786 |
| 12. Throbbing | 8 | 66.6 | 3 | 11.5 | 13 | 54.2 | 5 | 20.8 | 1 | 4.2 | 5 | 31.3 | 0 | 0 | 29.2 | .000*** | 6.7 | .080 |
When data related to measurement sessions were pooled, virtually frequency of every single sensory characteristic demonstrated statistically significant across different study sites in each treatment group (acupuncture and mock laser). N = Number of participants reported sensory perception; Χ2 Acup = Fisher Exact test for acupuncture group; Χ2 Laser = Fisher Exact test for mock laser group; Ɨ indicates exclusion of the mock laser group (n = 12) from study centre 3. In all cases the expected frequencies were less than five in each cell and therefore Fisher Exact test was used, * p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001
Comparison of the intensity of individual De Qi characteristics between the study groups
| De Qi Psychophysical Characteristics | Acupuncture | Mock Laser | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Interval range | Mdn | Mean Rank | N* | Intervalrange | Mdn | Mean Rank |
|
| |
| 1. Soreness | nil | 0 - 9 | 4 | 109.1 | 25 | 0 - 6 | 0 | 51.7 | 1076.5 | .000*** |
| 2. Aching | nil | 0 - 8 | 2 | 103.6 | 24 | 0 - 7 | 0 | 60.1 | 1678.5 | .000*** |
| 3. Deep Pressure | nil | 0 - 8 | 3 | 107.3 | 24 | 0 - 6 | 0 | 55.5 | 1331.5 | .000*** |
| 4. Heaviness | nil | 0 - 8 | 2 | 104.9 | 24 | 0 - 6 | 0 | 58.5 | 1552.0 | .000*** |
| 5. Fullness/ Distension | nil | 0 - 9 | 3 | 105.7 | 24 | 0 - 7 | 0 | 57.5 | 1484.5 | .000*** |
| 6. Tingling | nil | 0 - 9 | 1 | 96.01 | 24 | 0 - 6 | 0 | 69.8 | 2396.0 | .000*** |
| 7. Numbness | 1 | 0 - 9 | 2 | 103.1 | 24 | 0 - 5 | 0 | 59.9 | 1660.5 | .000*** |
| 8. Sharp Pain | nil | 0 - 8 | 1 | 93.1 | 24 | 0 - 5 | 0 | 73.6 | 2669.5 | .006** |
| 9. Dull Pain | nil | 0 - 8 | 1 | 95.1 | 26 | 0 - 9 | 0 | 68.4 | 2294.0 | .000*** |
| 10. Warmth | nil | 0 - 8 | 0 | 89.9 | 25 | 0 - 8 | 0 | 76.3 | 2870.5 | .022* |
| 11. Cold | nil | 0 - 9 | 0 | 96.1 | 24 | 0 - 7 | 0 | 69.7 | 2382.0 | .000*** |
| 12. Throbbing | 18 | 0 - 7 | 0 | 82.9 | 27 | 0 - 7 | 0 | 64.4 | 2015.0 | .000*** |
Comparison of individual De Qi qualities mean ranks among the study groups using Mann-Whitney U test (* p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001); N* = number of missing data, Mdn = Median; Mock laser group (Centre 3) was also excluded for analysis
Fig. 6a-l Comparison of individual De Qi characteristics across the two study groups (acupuncture and mock laser). MASS De Qi score for the acupuncture and mock laser group at the session 1 and session 9, (n = 47 for the acupuncture group, n = 38 for the mock laser group). The boxes are bound by the interquartile range (IQR) (top of box represents the 75th percentile, while the bottom of the box represents the 25th percentile). The boxes are divided by the median, and the whiskers attached to the box represent the minimum and maximum scores. Extreme values and outliers lied beyond the whiskers and denoted differently with a star and a circle respectively
Factor loading of De Qi perception of sensory responses in the two study groups
| De Qi Characteristics | Acupuncture | Mock laser | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C 1 | C2 | De Qi Characteristics | C 1 | C 2 | |
| Dull pain | .857 | Heaviness | .914 | ||
| Sharp pain | .823 | Aching | .887 | ||
| Throbbing | .770 | Deep pressure | .857 | ||
| Cold | .761 | Soreness | .836 | ||
| Tingling | .728 | Fullness/ Distension | .766 | ||
| Warmth | .697 | Warmth | .727 | ||
| Aching | .575 | Tingling | .668 | ||
| Fullness/ Distension | −.912 | Sharp pain | .614 | ||
| Soreness | −.899 | Numbness | .511 | ||
| Deep pressure | −.847 | Throbbing | .889 | ||
| Heaviness | −.781 | Cold | .847 | ||
| Numbness | −.664 | Dull pain | .598 | ||
Explorative Principle Component Analysis (PCA) with oblique rotation in each study group produced two components represented as C1 and C2 in the table. All participants were included in the analysis and data for weeks (measurement sessions) were pooled together