Why do we fail throughout the world to perform good clinical research in auriculotherapy/auricular acupuncture?

Abstract

The first systematic review on the efficacy of Auriculotherapy concerning insomnia and sleep disorders was published in 2007. In recent years (2007–2015) further reviews have been issued on pain management, smoking and preoperative anxiety. The ”delayed” number of systematic reviews (SR) and meta-analyses (MA) reported in literature seems to be indicative of the insufficient quantity and quality of RCTs published in the last 40 years on the potentials of our innovative discipline. Almost all SR and MA are written in English, but there is one in French language which should be carefully consulted and understood by our readers entitled ”Évaluation de l'efficacité de la pratique de l'Auriculothérapie”, published 25-07-2013 by the ”Institute National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale” (INSERM). In this review several inadequacies and biases were found in the reported RCTs which may represent an obstacle in the development of research and the achievement of a solid scientific basis. The insufficient quality of the studies is mainly of methodological order and appears to be associated with an incomplete application of EBM guidelines.Further specific factors are discussed in this article, which slow down a qualitative research in this field, such as the insufficiently validated auricular diagnostic methods, the bi-dimensional representation of auricular zones and the proliferation of new auricular charts without any proof of clinical value.