Abstract
In a recent clinical trial, Hinman and colleagues concluded that neither laser nor needle acupuncture conferred benefit over sham for pain or function in patients older than 50 years with moderate or severe chronic knee pain, which contradicts with NIH's recognition and the positive clinical experience of most acupuncturists. This review article highlights - major shortfalls from Hinman et al's clinical trial as follows. Laser acupuncture, defined as «low intensity laser therapy to acupuncture points, should not be labeled as acupuncture. A sham acupuncture control was not -set by the trialdesign. As for the trial design, there was a greater degree of randomness in selecting acupoints and inconsistencies of needling parameters among multiple subjects, acupuncture providers and facilities. Furthermore, the acupuncture needles used in this study were also too short to achieve any targeted efficacy, and the total number of treatments was insufficient, which is less than that commonly applied by most acupuncturists. In addition, the trial lacked observations or comparisons of short-term acupuncture efficacy. By revealing these shortfalls of Hinman et al's clinical trial, one may understand more about the paradox of acupuncture efficacy for chronic knee pain.
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.