Li Wenting, Liu Xiaoyang, Lin Jiahui, Huang Jianpeng, Li Sheng, Xu Nenggui, Fu Wenbin, Liu Jianhua
Acupuncture Research Team, The Second Clinical College of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou, Guangdong, People's Republic of China.
Liaoning University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shenyang, Liaoning, People's Republic of China.
J Pain Res. 2025 Jun 11;18:2909-2922. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S515679. eCollection 2025.
Chronic neck pain (CNP) is a common but challenging symptom in clinical practice. Acupuncture is widely used in alleviating the symptoms of CNP. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) in patients with CNP and to quantify the specific effects of EA by controlling for placebo effects.
A randomized sham-controlled trial was conducted at the outpatient departments of single hospital in China from November 2019 to November 2020 and a total of 105 participants with CNP were enrolled. Participants were randomly assigned (1:1:1) to the EA group, sham electroacupuncture (SEA) group and waiting list (WL) group. The primary outcome was change in the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Secondary outcomes included McGill Pain Questionnaire (MG), visual analogue scale (VAS) and pain threshold (PT).
This randomized clinical trial included 98 patients. The EA group demonstrated a greater reduction in NPQ scores compared to the SEA group after 10 sessions (-7.2564, 95% CI=-12.2875 to -2.2253, =0.0054) and at 3-month follow up (-7.0090, 95% CI=-10.5039 to -3.5140, =0.0002). After 10 sessions, the EA and SEA groups exhibited greater reductions in NPQ scores compared to the WL group (EA vs WL: 0.001, [95% CI=6.570 to 15.503]; SEA vs WL: =0.027, [95% CI=0.578 to 9.580]). However, the EA group achieved clinically significant NPQ improvements (>25%), whereas the SEA group failed to meet this criterion.
This randomized clinical trial found that, in patients with CNP, EA significantly improved the symptoms compared with SEA and WL groups both immediately and cumulatively (at 5 weeks), and these benefits persisted through week 17. These comparisons demonstrated that EA's clinical benefits exceeded placebo effects.
慢性颈痛（CNP）在临床实践中是一种常见但具有挑战性的症状。针灸被广泛用于缓解CNP的症状。本研究的主要目的是评估电针（EA）对CNP患者的疗效和安全性，并通过控制安慰剂效应来量化EA的具体效果。
2019年11月至2020年11月在中国一家医院的门诊进行了一项随机假对照试验，共纳入105例CNP患者。参与者被随机分配（1:1:1）至EA组、假电针（SEA）组和等待列表（WL）组。主要结局是Northwick Park颈痛问卷（NPQ）的变化。次要结局包括麦吉尔疼痛问卷（MG）、视觉模拟量表（VAS）和疼痛阈值（PT）。
这项随机临床试验纳入了98例患者。与SEA组相比，EA组在10次治疗后（-7.2564，95%CI=-12.2875至-2.2253，P=0.0054）和3个月随访时（-7.0090，95%CI=-10.5039至-3.5140，P=0.0002）NPQ评分降低更显著。10次治疗后，与WL组相比，EA组和SEA组的NPQ评分降低更显著（EA组与WL组：P=0.001，[95%CI=6.570至15.503]；SEA组与WL组：P=0.027，[95%CI=0.578至9.580]）。然而，EA组实现了具有临床意义的NPQ改善（>25%），而SEA组未达到该标准。
这项随机临床试验发现，在CNP患者中，与SEA组和WL组相比，EA在即刻和累积（5周时）均显著改善了症状，且这些益处持续至第17周。这些比较表明EA的临床益处超过了安慰剂效应。
