Wan Renhong, Zheng Qianhua, Zeng Xiaorui, Luo Yalan, Sun Luqiang, Chen Shuai, Luo Fangli, Zhang Yupeng, Zhu Ziyue, Chen Xinyun, Zhao Yuanyuan, Li Ying
Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Luzhou Longmatan TCM Hospital, Luzhou, China.
BMC Complement Med Ther. 2025 Sep 1;25(1):323. doi: 10.1186/s12906-025-05055-x.
The clinical effects of acupuncture are often underestimated due to the placebo effect of sham acupuncture. While multiple sham acupuncture methods have been used in clinical practice, it is challenging to select the appropriate sham acupuncture technique due to the lack of head-to-head trials.
The purpose of this study was to compare the differential placebo effects of diverse sham acupuncture interventions, providing evidence-based guidance for selecting optimal placebo controls in clinical practice.
PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (from inceptions to May 1, 2025). The primary outcome measure was pain variation, while secondary outcome measures included adverse events and the assessment of acupuncture blinding. Frequentist random-effect models were employed to perform indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis, and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) was utilized to evaluate the level of evidence.
A total of 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving 7 sham acupuncture methods and 8287 participants. Regarding pain variation, the difference was noted between the waiting treatment group (mean difference 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.35), SUCRA 97.4%; moderate confidence of evidence) and manual acupuncture group was most pronounced, followed by the difference between the acupoint and no penetration group (mean difference 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.55), SUCRA 73.6%; low confidence of evidence) and the nonacupoint and no penetration group (mean difference 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 1.65), SUCRA 64.8%; low confidence of evidence). Additionally, the rate of adverse events was comparable among the aforementioned sham acupuncture groups, and the blinding procedure was successfully implemented in the trials.
The placebo effect of sham acupuncture is significant, among which the no penetration (acupoint or nonacupoint) groups exhibited the lowest placebo effect. Nevertheless, further head-to-head trials are warranted to obtain direct evidence.
PROSPERO no. CRD42024535012.
由于假针刺的安慰剂效应,针刺的临床效果常常被低估。虽然临床实践中已使用多种假针刺方法,但由于缺乏直接比较的试验,选择合适的假针刺技术具有挑战性。
本研究旨在比较不同假针刺干预措施的不同安慰剂效应,为临床实践中选择最佳安慰剂对照提供循证指导。
系统检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane对照试验中央注册库和Web of Science,查找比较针刺与假针刺治疗慢性非癌性疼痛的随机对照试验(从数据库建库至2025年5月1日)。主要结局指标为疼痛变化,次要结局指标包括不良事件和针刺盲法评估。采用频率随机效应模型进行间接治疗比较的Meta分析,并利用网络Meta分析可信度(CINeMA)评估证据水平。
共纳入45项随机对照试验,涉及7种假针刺方法和8287名参与者。在疼痛变化方面,等待治疗组(平均差值1.86(95%置信区间1.36至2.35),累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)97.4%;中等证据可信度)与手针组之间的差异最为显著,其次是穴位浅刺组(平均差值1.14(95%置信区间0.74至1.55),SUCRA 73.6%;低证据可信度)与非穴位浅刺组(平均差值1.00(95%置信区间0.35至1.65),SUCRA 64.8%;低证据可信度)之间的差异。此外,上述假针刺组的不良事件发生率相当,且试验中成功实施了盲法程序。
假针刺的安慰剂效应显著,其中浅刺(穴位或非穴位)组的安慰剂效应最低。然而,仍需进一步进行直接比较试验以获得直接证据。
PROSPERO注册号CRD42024535012。