Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients

作者：Dian Zeng, Xiaoxia Yan, Hongmei Deng, Jiemei Li, Jiaxin Xiao, Jiawei Yuan, Jianpeng Huang, Nenggui Xu, Wenbin Fu, Jianhua Liu · 发表于：European Journal of Pain · 年份：2022 · 被引用次数：55 · 研究领域：Acupuncture Treatment Research Studies、Pain Management and Placebo Effect、Pain Mechanisms and Treatments

BACKGROUND: In prospective experimental studies of neck pain patients, it is difficult to determine whether responses to sham acupuncture differ from responses to real acupuncture due to the heterogeneous methodologies in control/sham interventions. Here we aim to compare the specific and nonspecific effects of electroacupuncture with four types of sham acupuncture. METHODS: In this double-blind, sham-controlled study, we randomly assigned 175 patients with neck pain to receive 10 sessions of electroacupuncture, shallow puncture, nonacupoint deep puncture, nonacupoint shallow puncture, or nonpenetration acupuncture. We used the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ) as our primary outcome, and Short-form McGill Pain Questionnaire, visual analog scale (VAS), and Pain Threshold as secondary outcomes to measure the changes from baseline to a 3-month follow up. RESULTS: All groups, except nonacupoint shallow puncture, had significant improvement in all outcome measurements. Electroacupuncture only showed superior improvements than the shallow puncture, nonacupoint shallow puncture, and nonpenetration groups when compared using the NPQ and VAS scale (*p < 0.001). Interestingly, the nonacupoint shallow puncture produced even less placebo response than nonpenetration acupuncture. CONCLUSION: Our study demonstrates the high variability of placebo response among different types of sham controls depending on the depth of needle insertion and the puncture location. An important im...