Can individuals identify if needling was performed with an acupuncture needle or a non-penetrating sham needle?
(2008) In Complementary Therapies in Medicine 16(5). p.288-294- Abstract
- A control treatment in acupuncture research must be credible, regardless if the needting is performed by one or by several therapists. Objective: To investigate if individuals could identify whether neediing had been given with an acupuncture needle or a sham needle and if the therapist influenced this ability. Design: Eighty individuals were randomized to one single needling given by one of four physiotherapists using either an invasive needle or a non-penetrating telescopic sham needle. Results: An equal proportion of individuals, 27 (68%), in the acupuncture group and the sham group answered incorrectly or was not sure at ail regarding needling type but the proportion varied between the therapists from 55 to 80% (ns). Bang's blinding... (More)
- A control treatment in acupuncture research must be credible, regardless if the needting is performed by one or by several therapists. Objective: To investigate if individuals could identify whether neediing had been given with an acupuncture needle or a sham needle and if the therapist influenced this ability. Design: Eighty individuals were randomized to one single needling given by one of four physiotherapists using either an invasive needle or a non-penetrating telescopic sham needle. Results: An equal proportion of individuals, 27 (68%), in the acupuncture group and the sham group answered incorrectly or was not sure at ail regarding needling type but the proportion varied between the therapists from 55 to 80% (ns). Bang's blinding index was 0.20 (95% CI 0.03-0.36) in the acupuncture group and 0.10 (95% Cl 0.09-0.29) in the sham group (interpretation: 20 and 10% identified needling type beyond statistical chance). Acupuncture was on a four-grade scale rated as median "mildly painful" and sham as "not painful'' (ns). Pain ratings varied from median "not" to "mildly painful'' in the therapists (p=0.01). Conclusions: Two thirds of individuals needled by acupuncture as well as sham could not identify needling type and only 10-20% of the individuals were unblinded beyond chance. The therapists, not the needling type, influenced how painful the needling was perceived. Implications: To achieve blinding success in acupuncture efficacy studies using the sham needle, the needling procedure must be strictly standardized in order to minimize differences between the therapists. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Atl, rights reserved. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
https://lup.lub.lu.se/record/1285825
- author
- Enblom, Anna LU ; Hammar, Mats ; Steineck, Gunnar and Borjeson, Sussanne
- organization
- publishing date
- 2008
- type
- Contribution to journal
- publication status
- published
- subject
- keywords
- Sham, Reliability, methodology, Acupuncture therapy, Blinding Research
- in
- Complementary Therapies in Medicine
- volume
- 16
- issue
- 5
- pages
- 288 - 294
- publisher
- Churchill Livingstone
- external identifiers
-
- wos:000259915000007
- scopus:50249087447
- ISSN
- 0965-2299
- DOI
- 10.1016/j.ctim.2008.02.012
- language
- English
- LU publication?
- yes
- additional info
- The information about affiliations in this record was updated in December 2015. The record was previously connected to the following departments: The Vårdal Institute (016540000)
- id
- fcb03944-cc07-4c79-9638-92aba14e01f8 (old id 1285825)
- date added to LUP
- 2016-04-01 15:01:19
- date last changed
- 2022-03-06 22:20:21
@article{fcb03944-cc07-4c79-9638-92aba14e01f8,
abstract = {{A control treatment in acupuncture research must be credible, regardless if the needting is performed by one or by several therapists. Objective: To investigate if individuals could identify whether neediing had been given with an acupuncture needle or a sham needle and if the therapist influenced this ability. Design: Eighty individuals were randomized to one single needling given by one of four physiotherapists using either an invasive needle or a non-penetrating telescopic sham needle. Results: An equal proportion of individuals, 27 (68%), in the acupuncture group and the sham group answered incorrectly or was not sure at ail regarding needling type but the proportion varied between the therapists from 55 to 80% (ns). Bang's blinding index was 0.20 (95% CI 0.03-0.36) in the acupuncture group and 0.10 (95% Cl 0.09-0.29) in the sham group (interpretation: 20 and 10% identified needling type beyond statistical chance). Acupuncture was on a four-grade scale rated as median "mildly painful" and sham as "not painful'' (ns). Pain ratings varied from median "not" to "mildly painful'' in the therapists (p=0.01). Conclusions: Two thirds of individuals needled by acupuncture as well as sham could not identify needling type and only 10-20% of the individuals were unblinded beyond chance. The therapists, not the needling type, influenced how painful the needling was perceived. Implications: To achieve blinding success in acupuncture efficacy studies using the sham needle, the needling procedure must be strictly standardized in order to minimize differences between the therapists. (c) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. Atl, rights reserved.}},
author = {{Enblom, Anna and Hammar, Mats and Steineck, Gunnar and Borjeson, Sussanne}},
issn = {{0965-2299}},
keywords = {{Sham; Reliability; methodology; Acupuncture therapy; Blinding Research}},
language = {{eng}},
number = {{5}},
pages = {{288--294}},
publisher = {{Churchill Livingstone}},
series = {{Complementary Therapies in Medicine}},
title = {{Can individuals identify if needling was performed with an acupuncture needle or a non-penetrating sham needle?}},
url = {{http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ctim.2008.02.012}},
doi = {{10.1016/j.ctim.2008.02.012}},
volume = {{16}},
year = {{2008}},
}