Moffet Howard H
Division of Research, Kaiser Permanente, Oakland, CA 94612, USA.
J Altern Complement Med. 2009 Mar;15(3):213-6. doi: 10.1089/acm.2008.0356.
This study sought to determine whether sham acupuncture is as efficacious as true acupuncture, as defined by traditional acupuncture theories.
A systematic review was conducted of clinical trials that used sham acupuncture controls with needle insertion at wrong points (points not indicated for the condition) or non-points (locations that are not known acupuncture points). This study used a convenience sample of 229 articles resulting from a PubMed search using the keyword "acupuncture" and limited to "clinical trials" published in English in 2005 or 2006. Studies were categorized by use of wrong points versus non-points and the use of normal insertion and stimulation versus superficial insertion or minimal stimulation.
Thirty-eight acupuncture trials were identified. Most studies (22/38 = 58%) found no statistically significant difference in outcomes, and most of these (13/22 = 59%) found that sham acupuncture may be as efficacious as true acupuncture, especially when superficial needling was applied to non-points.
The findings cast doubt on the validity of traditional acupuncture theories about point locations and indications. Scientific rationales for acupuncture trials are needed to define valid controls, and the theoretical basis for traditional acupuncture practice needs to be re-evaluated.
本研究旨在确定假针刺是否与传统针刺理论所定义的真针刺一样有效。
对使用假针刺对照的临床试验进行系统评价，假针刺对照包括针刺错误穴位（针对该病症未标明的穴位）或非穴位（非已知穴位的位置）。本研究使用便利抽样法，从PubMed检索中选取了229篇文章，检索关键词为“针刺”，并限于2005年或2006年以英文发表的“临床试验”。研究根据使用错误穴位与非穴位以及使用正常进针和刺激与浅刺或最小刺激进行分类。
共识别出38项针刺试验。大多数研究（22/38 = 58%）发现结果无统计学显著差异，其中大多数（13/22 = 59%）发现假针刺可能与真针刺一样有效，尤其是当对非穴位进行浅刺时。
这些发现对传统针刺理论中关于穴位位置和适应症的有效性提出了质疑。针刺试验需要科学的理论依据来定义有效的对照，传统针刺实践的理论基础需要重新评估。
