• Nicola M Downs, Kerry Kirk, and Alasdair MacSween.
• Physiotherapy Subject Area, School of Health Sciences, Queen Margaret University College, Leith Campus, Duke Street, Edinburgh EH6 8HF, Scotland, UK. nicky@nickydowns.freeserve.co.uk
• Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2005 Jun 1;86(6):1252-7.

ObjectiveTo compare the effect of real and sham acupuncture and a control intervention on thermal sensation and thermal pain thresholds.DesignSingle-blind, randomized controlled, repeated-measures trial.SettingLaboratory.ParticipantsEighteen acupuncture-naive, healthy subjects with no history of upper-limb pathology or acupuncture contraindications.InterventionSubjects were randomly assigned (blind card allocation) to 1 of 6 possible orders of application of the interventions, which consisted of 25 minutes each of control, real, and sham acupuncture.Main Outcome MeasuresThermal sensation and thermal pain thresholds measured with a thermal sensory analyzer before and after each intervention.ResultsThere were increases in cold and hot pain and cold sensation thresholds with real acupuncture. The level of increase did not differ significantly from the changes that occurred with sham acupuncture and control interventions.ConclusionsAlthough we observed a trend toward a decreased sensitivity to thermal pain and thermal sensation with real acupuncture, this trend did not differ significantly from the changes with control or sham interventions. Therefore, no support was provided for analgesic or placebo effects of acupuncture. The trend, combined with the relatively low power of the inferential tests applied does, however, suggest that further research is merited.

13 keywords...

hide…