|
| (A) Comparison of main interventions |
| (a) MA versus EA | MA increased DMN connectivity and EA showed DMN deactivation [58] |
|
| (B) Verum versus sham |
| EA versus sham | |
| (a) Streitberger needling | EA increased functional connectivity of PAG [60] |
| (b) Patch/tape | No difference of AEP after EA or sham [31] |
| Decrease of late SEP amplitude after EA [32] |
| MA versus sham | |
| (a) Painful tactile stimulation | More areas activated by MA (ST36 > LI11) than painful stimulus [46] |
| (b) Blunt overt sham | More activation by (1st > 2nd) MA than blunt overt sham [56] |
| (c) Von Frey filament | More areas activated after MA than von Frey filaments + delayed, sustained in/decreases after MA [54] |
| Stronger ANS responses (HR, skin conductance resistance) and DMN changes after ST36 and SP9 than sham [55] |
| (d) Streitberger needling | More areas with PET opioid agonist binding decrease after MA than Streitberger needle [35] |
| MA influences qEEG power bands changes in linear relation with HRV changes [42] |
| Verum versus combined sham | |
| (a) EA | Correlation of SEP F-waves with increasing EA stimulation [30] |
| (b) MA | BIS decrease for acupressure, laser and pressure at NAP, not MA [41] |
| More areas activated for MA in comparison with blunt and MA in comparison with Streitberger [36] |
|
| (C) Point specificity |
| GB37 versus NAP | |
| MA | Different temporal activities for GB37, BL60 and NAP [47] |
| ICA but not GLM showed more affected areas by GB37 than NAP [49] |
| Wider spatial distribution, long-lasting responses for GB37 than NAP [53] |
| LI4 versus NAP | |
| (a) MA | More rCBF activation for LI4 (with deqi > without) than NAP [17] |
| CBF decreases in more areas for LI4 than NAP [37] |
| (b) EA | Correlation of SEP F-waves with increasing EA stimulation [30] |
| No difference in SEP for LI4 and NAP [33] |
| LI4 but not NAP produced later latency SEP and attenuation of n. medianus amplitude [34] |
| ST36 versus NAP | |
| MA | Wider and sustained activation effects after ST36 than NAP [44] |
| Higher network efficiency after ST36 than NAP [45] |
| Different network correlations after ST36 and NAP [48] |
| Manipulation-related and longer-lasting effects for ST36 than NAP [50] |
| Immediate activation of larger areas and sustained, stronger functional connectivity for ST36 in comparison to NAP [59] |
| Different nodal and point-related effects, but similar efficiency after ST36 and NAP [51] |
| Changes of PCC action as DMN hub after ST36 but not NAP [57] |
|
