Healthpointe, Medical Group La Mirada, La Mirada, CA 90638, USA.
Department of Health Administration, California State University at Northridge, Northridge, CA 90638, USA.
J Integr Med. 2017 May;15(3):165-171. doi: 10.1016/S2095-4964(17)60338-8.
Research on acupuncture has been muddled by attempts to bridge the ancient with the modern. Barriers to effectiveness research are reflected in recurring conflicts that include disagreement on use of the most basic terms, lack of standard intervention controls, and the absence of functional measures for assessing treatment effect. Acupuncture research has stalled at the "placebo barrier" wherein acupuncture is "no better than placebo." The most widely recognized comparative effectiveness research in acupuncture does not compare acupuncture treatment protocols within groups, thereby, mutating large scale effectiveness studies into large scale efficacy trials. Too often research in acupuncture attempts to tie outcomes to traditional belief systems thereby limiting usefulness of the research. The acupuncture research paradigm needs to focus more closely on a scientific definition of treatments and outcomes that compare protocols in terms of prevalent clinical issues such as relative effectiveness for treating pain.
对针灸的研究一直因试图将古代与现代联系起来而变得混乱不堪。有效性研究的障碍反映在反复出现的冲突中，包括对最基本术语的使用存在分歧、缺乏标准干预控制以及缺乏用于评估治疗效果的功能措施。针灸研究在“安慰剂障碍”中停滞不前，即针灸“不比安慰剂好”。在针灸中最广泛认可的比较有效性研究并没有在组内比较针灸治疗方案，因此，将大规模有效性研究转变为大规模疗效试验。针灸研究往往试图将结果与传统信仰体系联系起来，从而限制了研究的有用性。针灸研究范式需要更紧密地关注治疗方法和结果的科学定义，根据常见的临床问题（如治疗疼痛的相对有效性）来比较方案。
