Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine / 2015 / Article / Tab 9

Review Article

Neuroimaging and Neuromonitoring Effects of Electro and Manual Acupuncture on the Central Nervous System: A Literature Review and Analysis

Table 9

Subgroup results table.

(A) Comparison of main interventions
(a) MA versus EAMA increased DMN connectivity and EA showed DMN deactivation [58]

(B) Verum versus sham
EA versus sham
 (a) Streitberger needlingEA increased functional connectivity of PAG [60]
 (b) Patch/tapeNo difference of AEP after EA or sham [31]
Decrease of late SEP amplitude after EA [32]
MA versus sham
 (a) Painful tactile stimulationMore areas activated by MA (ST36 > LI11) than painful stimulus [46]
 (b) Blunt overt shamMore activation by (1st > 2nd) MA than blunt overt sham [56]
 (c) Von Frey filamentMore 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 needlingMore 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) EACorrelation of SEP F-waves with increasing EA stimulation [30]
 (b) MABIS 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
 MADifferent 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) MAMore rCBF activation for LI4 (with deqi > without) than NAP [17]
CBF decreases in more areas for LI4 than NAP [37]
 (b) EACorrelation 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
 MAWider 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]

We are committed to sharing findings related to COVID-19 as quickly as possible. We will be providing unlimited waivers of publication charges for accepted research articles as well as case reports and case series related to COVID-19. Review articles are excluded from this waiver policy. Sign up here as a reviewer to help fast-track new submissions.