A 2009 overview of Cochrane reviews found Acupuncture is not effective for a wide range of conditions. A 2011 overview of high-quality Cochrane reviews suggests that acupuncture is effective for certain types of pain. A 2011 systematic review of systematic reviews which highlighted recent high-quality RCTs found that for reducing pain, real acupuncture was no better than sham acupuncture, and concluded that numerous reviews have shown little convincing evidence that acupuncture is an effective treatment for reducing pain. The same review found that neck pain was one of only four types of pain for which a positive effect was suggested, but cautioned that the primary studies used carried a considerable risk of bias.
A 2014 systematic review suggests that the nocebo effect of acupuncture is clinically relevant and that the rate of adverse events may be a gauge of the nocebo effect. According to the 2014 Miller’s Anesthesia book, "when compared with placebo, acupuncture treatment has proven efficacy for relieving pain". A 2012 meta-analysis conducted by the Acupuncture Trialists’ Collaboration found "relatively modest" efficiency of acupuncture (in comparison to sham) for the treatment of four different types of chronic pain, and on that basis concluded that it "is more than a placebo" and a reasonable referral option. Commenting on this meta-analysis, both Edzard Ernst and David Colquhoun said the results were of negligible clinical significance. Edzard Ernst later stated that "I fear that, once we manage to eliminate this bias [that operators are not blind] … we might find that the effects of acupuncture exclusively are a placebo response." Andrew Vickers, lead author of the original 2012 paper and chair of the Acupuncture Trialists’ Collaboration, rejects that analysis, stating that the differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture are statistically significant.
A 2010 systematic review suggested that acupuncture is more than a placebo for commonly occurring chronic pain conditions, but the authors acknowledged that it is still unknown if the overall benefit is clinically meaningful or cost-effective. A 2010 review found real acupuncture and sham acupuncture produce similar improvements, which can only be accepted as evidence against the efficacy of acupuncture. The same review found limited evidence that real acupuncture and sham acupuncture appear to produce biological differences despite similar effects. A 2009 systematic review and meta-analysis found that acupuncture had a small analgesic effect, which appeared to lack any clinical importance and could not be discerned from bias. The same review found that it remains unclear whether acupuncture reduces pain independent of a psychological impact of the needling ritual.
1 response to “Pain”
Leave a Reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Your article is very helpful for me,i like it,thanks a lot!