Cargando…

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

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 nonspecifi...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Zeng, Dian, Yan, Xiaoxia, Deng, Hongmei, Li, Jiemei, Xiao, Jiaxin, Yuan, Jiawei, Huang, Jianpeng, Xu, Nenggui, Fu, Wenbin, Liu, Jianhua
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35129852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1924
_version_ 1784752331625070592
author Zeng, Dian
Yan, Xiaoxia
Deng, Hongmei
Li, Jiemei
Xiao, Jiaxin
Yuan, Jiawei
Huang, Jianpeng
Xu, Nenggui
Fu, Wenbin
Liu, Jianhua
author_facet Zeng, Dian
Yan, Xiaoxia
Deng, Hongmei
Li, Jiemei
Xiao, Jiaxin
Yuan, Jiawei
Huang, Jianpeng
Xu, Nenggui
Fu, Wenbin
Liu, Jianhua
author_sort Zeng, Dian
collection PubMed
description 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 implication of our results is nonacupoint deep puncture produced similar analgesic effects as electroacupuncture. Our study may shed a new light on the predominant underlying mechanisms among different types of sham acupuncture controls, which can help with interpreting the effect of acupuncture in other studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese clinical trial registry (ChiCTR‐IOR‐15006886). SIGNIFICANCE: This study compared the observed specific and nonspecific analgesia effect in four different types of sham acupuncture stimulation with neck pain patients, assessed by four outcomes. Although all of the sham controls produced significant reduction in neck pain, electroacupuncture had superior significant improvement. Importantly, placebo responses differed significantly between the sham controls and responses were inconsistent according to different outcome assessments. This study emphasizes the importance of taking into consideration which sham control and method of outcome measurement were used in a pain research study when evaluating its results.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9305463
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-93054632022-07-28 Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients Zeng, Dian Yan, Xiaoxia Deng, Hongmei Li, Jiemei Xiao, Jiaxin Yuan, Jiawei Huang, Jianpeng Xu, Nenggui Fu, Wenbin Liu, Jianhua Eur J Pain Original Articles 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 implication of our results is nonacupoint deep puncture produced similar analgesic effects as electroacupuncture. Our study may shed a new light on the predominant underlying mechanisms among different types of sham acupuncture controls, which can help with interpreting the effect of acupuncture in other studies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Chinese clinical trial registry (ChiCTR‐IOR‐15006886). SIGNIFICANCE: This study compared the observed specific and nonspecific analgesia effect in four different types of sham acupuncture stimulation with neck pain patients, assessed by four outcomes. Although all of the sham controls produced significant reduction in neck pain, electroacupuncture had superior significant improvement. Importantly, placebo responses differed significantly between the sham controls and responses were inconsistent according to different outcome assessments. This study emphasizes the importance of taking into consideration which sham control and method of outcome measurement were used in a pain research study when evaluating its results. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-02-19 2022-05 /pmc/articles/PMC9305463/ /pubmed/35129852 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1924 Text en © 2022 The Authors. European Journal of Pain published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of European Pain Federation ‐ EFIC ®. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Zeng, Dian
Yan, Xiaoxia
Deng, Hongmei
Li, Jiemei
Xiao, Jiaxin
Yuan, Jiawei
Huang, Jianpeng
Xu, Nenggui
Fu, Wenbin
Liu, Jianhua
Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients
title Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients
title_full Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients
title_fullStr Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients
title_full_unstemmed Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients
title_short Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients
title_sort placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: a randomized double‐blind trial in neck pain patients
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9305463/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35129852
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejp.1924
work_keys_str_mv AT zengdian placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT yanxiaoxia placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT denghongmei placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT lijiemei placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT xiaojiaxin placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT yuanjiawei placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT huangjianpeng placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT xunenggui placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT fuwenbin placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients
AT liujianhua placeboresponsevariesbetweendifferenttypesofshamacupuncturearandomizeddoubleblindtrialinneckpainpatients