Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Systematic review and meta-analysis
Acupuncture is superior to sham for painful conditions
  1. Adrian White1,
  2. Jens Foell2
  1. 1Primary Care, Peninsula Schools of Medicine and, Dentistry, Plymouth University, Plymouth, UK
  2. 2Centre for Primary Care and Public Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Adrian White
    Peninsula Schools of Medicine and, Dentistry, Plymouth University, Tamar Science Park, Plymouth PL68BX, UK; adrian.white{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Commentary on: OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science


Acupuncture is controversial. Even if one assumes its overall effectiveness, common explanations for its causal impact are biologically implausible. Hence acupuncture is often dismissed as ‘no more than a placebo’, and this allegation is difficult to disprove as placebo-controlled trials are problematic. ‘Placebo’ needles stimulate sensory nerves and are possibly a less active treatment, ‘sham’ rather than ‘placebo’.1 Small differences between treatments require large sample sizes, as achieved by meta-analysis. Previous meta-analyses concentrated on finding all trials, but poor quality limited the conclusions.


This is a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of chronic headache and musculoskeletal conditions that had unambiguous allocation concealment and were assessed …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests AW receives fees as the editor of the journal Acupuncture in Medicine.