Clinical research: |
(i) There is mounting evidence from large-scale effectiveness trials that acupuncture treatments are superior to usual care |
for some chronic pain conditions [39]. |
(ii) However, overall, acupuncture treatments are, at most, only marginally more effective than sham acupuncture |
[3, 41, 42]. |
(iii) Sham acupuncture treatment, when compared to no treatment, is associated with larger effect sizes than |
when conventional placebos are compared to no treatment [7–10]. |
(iv) There is no conclusive evidence as to which individual components of acupuncture treatment are directly |
associated with therapeutic benefit [3]. |
Basic research: |
(i) Basic science experiments, mostly in animals and healthy human subjects, show that acupuncture needling has |
demonstrable physiological effects that are dependent on needling parameters, including needle insertion depth, type, |
amplitude and frequency of needle stimulation [21, 40, 43–48]. |
(ii) In animal models, needling parameters appear related to therapeutically relevant outcomes, for example, |
analgesia, antihyperalgesia, decreased tissue inflammation, decreased elevated blood pressure, and altered gastrointestinal |
motility [19, 49–51]. |
(iii) The extent to which the precise needling location (e.g., acupuncture point versus nearby nonacupuncture point) |
influences physiological responses remains unclear, although, in animal models, different effects have been demonstrated |
when needles are inserted in different body regions (e.g., abdomen versus limb) [21, 52, 53]. |
(Citations refer to SAR conference summary articles, as well as more recent systematic reviews) |