• Frank J Salamone and Daniel G Federman.
• From the Frank H. Netter MD School of Medicine at Quinnipiac University, North Haven; the Department of Medicine, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven; and the Department of Medicine, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT.
• South. Med. J. 2021 Apr 1; 114 (4): 239-245.

AbstractThis study evaluated both randomized and nonrandomized trials of battlefield acupuncture for the treatment of both acute and chronic pain. Studies published between May 2016 and November 2019 were found through PubMed, the Cochrane Library, or Scopus, concerned with the treatment of pain using auricular acupuncture in accordance with battlefield acupuncture protocol. Search terms were battlefield acupuncture AND pain or auricular acupuncture AND pain. Case reports, literature reviews, meta-analyses, and expert opinions were not included. Bias risk was assessed using the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. We found 12 studies with a combined sample size of 12,326. All five of the included nonrandomized trials reported positive outcomes, while five of seven of the included randomized trials reached statistical significance in their primary outcome. Six of the randomized trials were considered to have a high risk of bias resulting from the lack of blinding. The one randomized trial with moderate bias risk was a positive study. No severe adverse events were reported. Clinicians may consider battlefield acupuncture as a safe treatment for pain while the evidence base grows; however, we conclude that widespread adoption of battlefield acupuncture will require further high-quality studies drawing from diverse settings and patient populations. In addition, future studies should attempt to achieve blinding.

9 keywords...

hide…