School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University Edinburgh, Edinburgh, United Kingdom.
Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2009 Dec;90(12):2141-5. doi: 10.1016/j.apmr.2009.08.142.
Tan C-W, Christie L, St-Georges V, Telford N. Discrimination of real and sham acupuncture needles using the Park sham device: a preliminary study.
To evaluate the blinding effectiveness of the Park sham acupuncture device using participants' ability to discriminate between the real and sham acupuncture needles.
The design was a yes-no experiment. Judgments were made on whether the real or sham acupuncture needle was administered.
University laboratory.
Healthy, acupuncture-naive university students and staff (N=20; median age, 22y; range, 18-48y) recruited through convenience sampling.
Participants made yes-no judgments on whether the real or sham needle was administered to 8 acupoints (4 traditional and 4 nontraditional) along the Pericardium meridian (Pericardium 3 to Pericardium 6) on the dominant forearm.
The accuracy index, d', of participants' ability to discriminate between the real and sham needles (discriminability) was computed for the traditional alone, the nontraditional alone, and a combination of both types of acupoints.
The participants' d' between the real and sham needles was not statistically significant from d' equal to 0 for the combined traditional and nontraditional acupoints comparison and the nontraditional acupoints alone comparison (combined, t(19)=1.20, P=.25; nontraditional, t(19)=.16, P=.87). However, the participants' d' was statistically significant from d' equal to 0 for the traditional acupoints comparison (t(19)=2.096, P=.049).
The Park sham acupuncture device appears to be effective in blinding participants to real acupuncture intervention when it is applied to the nontraditional acupoints and when traditional and nontraditional acupoints are combined on the forearm along the pericardium meridian. However, the sham device does not appear to blind participants effectively when traditional acupoints alone are used for the same context.
通过参与者区分真实和模拟针灸针的能力来评估 Park 模拟针灸仪的盲法效果。
设计为“是-否”实验。判断是给予真实针灸针还是模拟针灸针。
大学实验室。
通过便利抽样招募的健康、未经针灸治疗的大学生和工作人员（N=20；中位数年龄 22 岁；范围 18-48 岁）。
参与者对 8 个穴位（心包经上的 4 个传统穴位和 4 个非传统穴位）的真实或模拟针进行了“是-否”判断，位于优势前臂。
参与者区分真实和模拟针的能力的准确性指数 d'（可辨别性），分别计算传统穴位、非传统穴位以及两种类型穴位的组合。
参与者在传统穴位和非传统穴位的组合以及非传统穴位的比较中，其真实和模拟针之间的 d' 与 d' 等于 0 无统计学差异（组合，t（19）=1.20，P=.25；非传统，t（19）=0.16，P=.87）。然而，参与者在传统穴位比较中的 d' 与 d' 等于 0 有统计学差异（t（19）=2.096，P=.049）。
当 Park 模拟针灸仪应用于非传统穴位以及在前臂心包经上同时应用传统和非传统穴位时，该设备似乎能有效地使参与者对真实的针灸干预产生盲法，但当仅使用传统穴位时，该设备对参与者的盲法效果似乎不佳。
