Multidisciplinary Pain Center, Department of Anaesthesiology, University of Munich, Pettenkoferstraße 8A, 80336 Munich, Germany.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2011;2011:485945. doi: 10.1093/ecam/neq009. Epub 2011 Mar 10.
Methodological problems of acupuncture trials focus on adequate placebo controls. In this trial we evaluated the use of sham laser acupuncture as a control procedure. Thirty-four healthy volunteers received verum laser (invisible infrared laser emission and red light, 45 s and 1 J per point) and sham laser (red light) treatment at three acupuncture points (LI4, LU7 and LR3) in a randomized, double-blinded, cross-over design. The main outcome measure was the ratio of correct to incorrect ratings of treatment immediately after each session. The secondary outcome measure was the occurrence of deqi-like sensations at the acupuncture points and their intensity on a 10-fold visual analog scale (VAS; 10 being the strongest sensible sensation). We pooled the results of three former trials to evaluate the credibility of sham laser acupuncture when compared to needle acupuncture. Fifteen out of 34 (44%) healthy volunteers (age: 28 ± 10.7 years) identified the used laser device after the first session and 14 (41%) after the second session. Hence, both treatments were undistinguishable (P = .26). Deqi-like sensations occurred in 46% of active laser (2.34 VAS) and in 49.0% of sham laser beams (2.49 VAS). The credibility of sham laser was not different from needle acupuncture. Sham laser acupuncture can serve as a valid placebo control in laser acupuncture studies. Due to similar credibility and the lack of sensory input on the peripheral nervous system, sham laser acupuncture can also serve as a sham control for acupuncture trials, in order to evaluate needling effects per se.
针灸试验的方法学问题主要集中在适当的安慰剂对照上。在本试验中,我们评估了使用假激光针灸作为对照程序。34 名健康志愿者在三个穴位(LI4、LU7 和 LR3)接受了真激光(不可见红外激光发射和红光,每次点 45 秒和 1J)和假激光(红光)治疗,采用随机、双盲、交叉设计。主要观察指标为每次治疗后即刻正确与错误评分的比值。次要观察指标为针刺点的得气样感觉的发生情况及其在 10 倍视觉模拟量表(VAS;10 为最强可感知感觉)上的强度。我们汇总了三项先前试验的结果,以评估与针剌相比,假激光针灸的可信度。34 名健康志愿者中的 15 名(44%)在第一次治疗后和 14 名(41%)在第二次治疗后识别出所使用的激光设备。因此,两种治疗方法无法区分(P =.26)。在活性激光(2.34VAS)中,46%出现了得气样感觉,在假激光束(2.49VAS)中,49.0%出现了得气样感觉。假激光的可信度与针剌无差异。假激光针灸可作为激光针灸研究中的有效安慰剂对照。由于可信度相似,且在周围神经系统上没有感觉输入,假激光针灸也可以作为针刺试验的假对照,以评估针刺本身的效果。