Firstly, I’d like to apologize for not posting for two weeks. I’ve been travelling a lot through Hong Kong and China. I will blog more on some observations I’ve made while in Hong Kong as soon as I get some of my photographs uploaded to my laptop.

Speaking of Hong Kong, I am beginning to wonder if there is some grand plot to discredit acupuncture in Hong Kong. First comes the “letter to the editor” concerning acupuncture spreading disease (http://qi-spot.com/2010/03/20/new-bashing-technique-acupuncture-causes-disease/) and now this.

“Acupuncture does not relieve childbirth pain” (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/28/acupuncture-childbirth-pain-study)

I am the first person in the world to admit where acupuncture is one big FAIL (such as in colour blindness). But I would like to call the attention of the reader to the weasel wording evident in this smear campaign of a headline.

Look at the title. “Acupuncture does not relieve childbirth pain.” What does this imply to the reader? It implies that acupuncture has no effect at all on the pain felt by mummy.

Yet the sub-title below the headline betrays a hint of the truth:

“Research suggests results from complementary therapy during labour may be placebo effect”

Now, we have no idea, based on this sub-headline if this is a single study or a meta-analysis.  As we have said before, a meta-analysis is a fancy way of saying, “let’s put different studies together just to get the numbers up.  We can always find a way to put the studies together that the sum total numbers can be made to say whatever we want.”

Secondly, it “suggests” (whatever that means) that the results may be placebo effect.  Wait.  Results?  RESULTS?  I thought that acupuncture “does not relieve” childbirth pain?  So if it is useless, why are there “results”?  That means there WAS relief of pain.

So why come up with a headline saying otherwise?  Because the results “may” be placebo effect.

Actually, I wouldn't use those points in pregnancy... but what the heck. Then again, he just might be some really fat guy...

The finding, which has already prompted a vigorous debate about the value of acupuncture, came from British and Korean researchers who examined previous studies of its use in labour.

“The results show that there is little convincing evidence that women who had acupuncture experienced less labour pain than those who received no pain relief, a conventional analgesia, a placebo or sham acupuncture,” researchers told BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The journal is owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which represents most of the UK’s doctors specialising in childbirth and maternity care.

The finding, which has already prompted a vigorous debate about the value of acupuncture, came from British and Korean researchers who examined previous studies of its use in labour.
“The results show that there is little convincing evidence that women who had acupuncture experienced less labour pain than those who received no pain relief, a conventional analgesia, a placebo or sham acupuncture,” researchers told BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. The journal is owned by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, which represents most of the UK’s doctors specialising in childbirth and maternity care.

So it IS a meta-analysis.  Strike one.  I wonder what points were used? Hmmm…

Prof Edzard Ernst, of the Peninsula medical school at Exeter and Plymouth Universities and co-author of the report, said: “The effects of acupuncture perceived by women are largely due to placebo. Acupuncture has many qualities that maximise placebo effects: it involves touch and is invasive and, psychologically, is attached to the mysticism of the east.”

Ernst is a known skeptic of acupuncture and makes a living (i.e. buy his book!) by bashing it.  Then again, I make my living healing patients with it, so I guess we cancel each other out.  Still, he admits that acupuncture DOES have an effect, it’s just that he either cannot or will not recognize the evidence that acupuncture DONE PROPERLY is more than placebo. (http://qi-spot.com/2010/04/04/a-study-to-look-forward-to-acupuncture-more-than-just-placebo/)

I would like to point out that even in western medicine, there exist drugs for which the mechanism of action is unknown.  Lithium is used for bipolar disorder and it is not known how it works.  Yet it is given, despite toxicity, because it has been observed to work.  I leave it to the reader to witness where the double standard lies.

Also, I find it disturbing that people will look down (albeit unintentionally) on patients’ experience just to pooh-pooh acupuncture.

Prof Philip Steer, BJOG’s editor-in-chief, said labour pain can be so intense that a women would do anything to minimise it.

Please, by that logic we can get a shaman in pyjamas to conduct ritual chants and that would work.  Yet it doesn’t, and acupuncture does.

“Acupuncture is a drug-free approach and that may explain why some women prefer its use during labour. This review shows that in a very small number of cases acupuncture may be of help, usually for short periods of time after treatment, and this may be down to psychological rather than a physiological effect. Generally the consensus is that the evidence does not support its use.”

The only benefits were 11% less pain in the first 30 minutes after receiving acupuncture and a need for less pharmacological pain relief, the authors say.

Wait wait wait.   The “only” benefits? So “they” begrudgingly admit that there are benefits!  Back to my first question: why the irresponsible headline, then?  The last part of the sentence betrays the answer:

“…a need for less pharmacological pain relief” – in english: LESS DRUGS.

Less drugs, less profit for big pharma.

I will skip to the last part:

Mike O’Farrell, chief executive of the British Acupuncture Council, said: “We’re surprised by these findings as previous trials, along with the evidence that our members see in their practices every day, suggest that acupuncture can be effective in providing pain relief in many different circumstances.”

Again, as I have said before, people not biased by big pharma can see where acupuncture works and it doesn’t.  I am happy to report, both first hand and through correspondence with other OB-Gynecologists even in the US, that acupuncture can work in reducing childbirth pain IF DONE PROPERLY.

My final thoughts: this article should have been entitled “Acupuncture apparently no better than placebo” instead of “Acupuncture doesn’t work”.  News bias, bah humbug.

Campbell, Denis.  ”Acupuncture does not relieve childbirth pain” The Guardian.  28 April 2010.  <http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/apr/28/acupuncture-childbirth-pain-study> Accessed 28 April 2010

Ah Germany, land of good beer, great sausages, and acupuncture research.  Stux et al have contributed much to acupuncture, and now a new study awaits publication that I am eager to read.

From http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20359961?dopt=Abstract:

Acupuncture, Psyche and the Placebo Response

Enck P, Klosterhalfen S, Zipfel S.

Auton Neurosci. 2010 Mar 30. [Epub ahead of print

University Hospital Tübingen, Dept. of Psychosomatic Medicine, Tübingen, Germany.

With growing use of acupuncture treatment in various clinical conditions, the question has been posed whether the reported effects reflect specific mechanisms of acupuncture or whether they represent placebo responses, as they often are similar in effect size and resemble similarities to placebo analgesia and its mechanisms. We reviewed the available literature for different placebos (sham procedures) used to control the acupuncture effects, for moderators and potential biases in respective clinical trials, and for central and peripheral mechanisms involved that would allow differentiation of placebo effects from acupuncture and sham acupuncture effects. While the evidence is still limited, it seems that biological differences exist between a placebo response, e.g. in placebo analgesia, and analgesic response during acupunture that does not occur with sham acupuncture. It seems advisable that clinical trials should include potential biomarkers of acupuncture, e.g. measures of the autonomic nervous system function to verify that acupuncture and sham acupuncture are different despite similar clinical effects. (emphasis mine)

Copyright © 2010 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Now like I've been blogging, I'm not out to prove acupuncture works or not.  I believe it does for many but not all conditions.  However, data such as this would only verify what I've been saying.  Yes, there ARE changes differentiating between sham and "real" acupuncture.  I am sure this refers to stimulation of a-delta fibers, stimulation of the periaqueductal gray and the VPL nuclei of the hypothalamus.  Nonetheless, I shall be on the lookout for the actual article.

Interestingly, I see another, seemingly contradictory article, while browsing the first one.  This time, from Sweden.  Now we see they've got more than just massage and meatballs: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19525330)

Is Placebo Acupuncture What it Is Intended to Be?
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2009 Jun 12. [Epub ahead of print]
Lundeberg T, Lund I, Sing A, Näslund J.
RPT, Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden. jan.e.naslund@ki.se.
Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are recommended for evaluation of a treatment’s efficacy with the goal of separating the specific effects (verum) from the non-specific ones (placebo). In order to be able to carry out placebo-controlled acupuncture trials, minimal/sham acupuncture procedures and a sham acupuncture needle has been used with the intention of being inert. However, clinical and experimental results suggest that sham/minimal acupuncture is not inert since it is reported that both verum acupuncture and sham/minimal acupuncture induce a significant alleviation of pain. This alleviation is as pronounced as the alleviation obtained with standard treatment and more obvious than the one obtained with placebo medication or by the use of waiting list controls. These results also suggest that sham acupuncture needles evoke a physiological response. In healthy individuals sham acupuncture results in activation of limbic structures, whereas a deactivation is seen in patients with pain, i.e. results from healthy individuals do not reflect what is seen in clinical conditions. Also, depending on the etiology of pain (or any under clinical condition under investigation), the response to sham acupuncture is varying. The acupuncture ritual may also be seen as an emotional focused therapy allowing for psychological re-orientation. Sham needling in such context may be as powerful as verum acupuncture. We recommend that the evaluated effects of acupuncture could be compared with those of standard treatment, also taking the individual response into consideration, before its use or non-use is established. (emphasis and italics mine)

What do these two studies together mean?

1) Current methods of sham and real acupuncture seem to evoke similar physiological responses. Studies have shown that at times, sham and real acupuncture seem to be effective.  Skeptics are quick to jump and say there, that means acupuncture is no better than placebo!  The proper term is that acupuncture SEEMS to be just the same as sham.  The problem with the skeptic logic is that they forget that both sham and real acupuncture are better than nothing, or TRUE placebo.  I can see it now:

Skeptic: Fake needling just the same as real needling! Hence, acupuncture isn’t real!

Acupuncturist: But both fake and real needling is better than nothing, what say ye?

Skeptic: So why not just massage? Why use needles?

Acupuncturist: I only have two hands right? (refer to Doctor Octopus as per my previous post http://qi-spot.com/2010/03/30/how-to-research-acupuncture/) And clinical experience says it works faster.

Skeptic: “Clinical experience” bah humbug!

On to point two:

2) So the second research says there’s a difference between nothing and acupuncture, whether sham or not.  The first research says there’s a difference, physiologically, between sham and real acupuncture.  I can foresee the dialogue now:

Skeptic: okay you say that clinically there’s a difference between sham and real acupuncture.  I want empirical evidence that there is a difference.  Otherwise I can just ignore your clinical experience like I ignore all other evidence that acupuncture can work and work well.  I’ll take the words of statisticians and published journals funded by Big Pharma over clinicians anyday.

Acupuncturist: Well what if there is proof that there is a physiologic difference between real and sham?

Skeptic: Is there?

Acupuncturist: That’s what the first study quoted above says.

Skeptic: Hmmm it says that it’s clinically similar, just physiologically different!

Acupuncturist: Jeez, I don’t know how to talk to you guys sometimes.  You say the real thing is no different than sham, so who cares if it works or not.  Then we say but both sham and real thing are better than nothing, you say that guys like Ernst et al say the studies suck, utterly ignoring that western medicine is also guilty of the same sins at times (perhaps more on that on a later blog post.. oh wait, lots of those already!)

Skeptic: Not all acupuncture studies suck, just the ones that prove acupuncture doesn’t work.

Acupuncturist: Then you insist in your holy grail of treating acupuncture like a pill, even though I’ve explained kabodles of times that Acupuncture is a procedure, not a pill (ka ching, five cents).

Patient (sneaking in): Uh guys, I don’t give a crap about that stuff, I just want to feel better so I can get on with my life.

Skeptic: You’re an idiot.  You don’t know squat.  We’re the only ones with brains and we know what’s best for you and what medicines you should buy.  Any perceived benefits from acupuncture and Chinese medicines are all in your head.  You’re too dumb to know the difference.

Philip: Okay I should stop now.  I’m going overboard with this blog post ha ha.

Acupuncture did wonders for my migraines.  I had it so bad before that i had status migranosus for a week.  Imagine a whole week of having most lights and sounds burn like soldering torches.  Imagine a whole week of misery and pain.  That was the worst, thankfully.  Typically my mood would be trashed, my eyes heavy, and my head pounding.

That was there for years, only mildly relieved by sumatriptan and once I even needed ergotamine given in hospital.  I thought I was doomed to a life of drugs.

Until acupuncture.

One treatment.

Since then, for five years, nothing.  They’ve only began to return mildly recently – time for a “booster treatment”.

Anyway, once can see why I am “biased” towards acupuncture – it worked for me.

It’s also quite nice to see it verified by western medicine:

Acupuncture Eases Migraine Headache Pain

Acupuncture May Be Cost-Effective Option for Treating Chronic Headache

(http://www.webmd.com/migraines-headaches/news/20040315/acupuncture-migraine-headache-pain)

Note the term “cost-effective option”.  This means basically that it’s an option that uses up less money in the long run.  Hence, the patient benefits from the same health effects but at less cost.

By Jennifer Warner

WebMD Health News

Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD

March 15, 2004 — Acupuncture may provide lasting relief from the pain of chronic headaches, such as migraines, according to a new study.

Researchers found that compared with standard medical care, acupuncture offers substantial benefits in preventing headaches and improving the quality of life for people who suffer from frequent headaches, especially migraines.

Acupuncture is commonly used to treat other types of chronic pain, but researchers say this is the first large-scale study to examine the effectiveness of acupuncture under real-life conditions. They say the results indicate that health insurance coverage of acupuncture services should be expanded to include the treatment of chronic headaches and migraine.

Darned right it should.

Pins and Needles Ease Migraine Pain

In the study, published in the March 15 issue of the British Medical Journal, researchers randomly divided 401 adults aged 18-65 years old with chronic headache (at least two headaches a month) — into two treatment groups. Participants had a history of having mostly migraine headaches.

I just found it interesting that six years ago, the BMJ seemed to support articles on acupuncture.  Now it publishes an editorial (not even a news article!) totally biased against it (see previous post).

One group received up to 12 acupuncture sessions during a three-month period in addition to standard medical care, and the other group received standard care alone.

A year later, researchers found those who received acupuncture:

• Experienced 22 fewer days with headaches
• Used 15% less medication
• Made 25% fewer visits to their doctor

Took 15% fewer days off sick from work than the control group

In my case it was no headaches, 100% less medication, 100% fewer visits and no sick days from work since the acupuncture.

One session btw.

Researchers say one limitation of their study is that the control group did not receive a sham acupuncture intervention. Therefore, some of the benefits found among the acupuncture group may have not been caused by the actual treatment but because of the “placebo effect,” which is based on the patient’s expectations of benefit from treatment rather than the effectiveness of the treatment itself.

But researchers say previous placebo-controlled studies have already shown that acupuncture is superior to placebo in treating migraine.

In a related study published in the same journal, British researchers found that acupuncture improves the quality of life for people with chronic headaches at a small additional cost. They say the findings show that acupuncture is a relatively cost-effective headache therapy compared with other treatments covered by the National Health Service of the United Kingdom.

A recent study I found (not online but I have the PDF file) entitled “Efficacy of Acupuncture for the Prophylaxis of Migraine: A multicentre randomised controlled clinical trial” (Lancet Neurology 2006;5:310-16)

The results were:

Findings Of 1295 patients screened, 960 were randomly assigned to a treatment group. Immediately after randomisation, 125 patients (106 from the standard group) withdrew their consent to study participation. 794 patients were analysed in the intention-to-treat popoulation and 443 in the per-protocol population. The primary outcome showed a mean reduction of 2·3 days (95% CI 1·9–2·7) in the verum acupuncture group, 1·5 days (1·1–2·0) in the sham acupuncture group, and 2·1 days (1·5–2·7) in the standard therapy group. These differences were statistically significant compared with baseline (p<0·0001), but not across the treatment groups (p=0·09). The proportion of responders, defined as patients with a reduction of migraine days by at least 50%, 26 weeks after randomisation, was 47% in the verum group, 39% in the sham acupuncture group, and 40% in the standard group (p=0·133).

The “verum” group was defined as receiving true acupuncture, the sham were placed in random points and standard as… standard western medical care.  Note that the condition for success was “reduction of migraine days”.  Personally I find that some patients can respond by having the same amount of headaches but less intensity and duration – they hurt much less and last shorter.

Anyway the results still show that real acupuncture works better than either sham or standard treatment.  Not statistically significant, but significant to patients.

And doctors like me.

This is a new low.  Hitting below the belt.  No, taking a jackhammer and hitting below the belt.

“Acupuncture Spreads Disease” (http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/wellbeing/acupuncture-spreads-disease-20100319-qjgo.html)

My first reaction is: of course it does.  Just like ANY OTHER MEDICAL PROCEDURE, acupuncture CAN spread disease, if done improperly.  But you don’t hear the media say that oh no…

First they say there’s no scientific basis.  Then research destroys that argument.

Then they say there’s no evidence.  Then research shows otherwise.

Now they have to scrape the bottom of the barrel just to discourage people from a safe (if done properly) procedure with less side effects (if any) than conventional therapies just so Big Pharma can continue hooking us on drugs.

Many people don’t read past the headline.  This headline implies that STANDARD acupuncture spreads disease.  The first paragraph, while finally implying that it is not acupuncture itself but substandard sterilization procedures cause disease, makes you forget that fact by pairing it with HIV and Hepatitis… causing panic in the reader.

Bacterial infections, hepatitis B and C, and possibly even HIV are being transmitted via acupuncture through the use of contaminated needles, cotton swabs and hot packs, experts have warned.

Note that he says “contaminated”.  However, by that time you’ve already read “hepatitis” and “HIV” despite the fact that to get HIV through acupuncture, you hypothetically have to dip the needle in an infected patient’s blood, and while it’s still fresh (HIV dies in dried blood) poke it in ANOTHER patient.

Even the article (begrudgingly, and at the END) says as much.

“Although no clear evidence exists to support a link between acupuncture and HIV infection, there are reports of patients with HIV who had no risk factors other than acupuncture,” it said.

Yes, I had heard about this in a lecture where CDC numbers are mentioned.  The number of these reports? uh ONE? (http://www.hivatwork.org/tools/factshts.htm) and that was only because they couldn’t think of any other reason.  Similar to those babies in eastern europe that tested positive for HIV despite having HIV negative mothers – so they couldn’t think of any other reason except contaminated needles.

In an editorial published in the British Medical Journal, microbiologists at the University of Hong Kong said the number of reported acupuncture-related infections worldwide was the tip of an iceberg and they called for tighter infection control measures.

“To prevent infections transmitted by acupuncture, infection control measures should be implemented, such as use of disposable needles, skin disinfection procedures and aseptic techniques,” wrote the researchers, led by Patrick Woo, microbiology professor at the University of Hong Kong.

Woo and his colleagues said acupuncture may be risky as needles are inserted up to several centimetres beneath the skin and they warned of a new syndrome – acupuncture mycobacteriosis – in the 21st century.

“This is an infection caused by mycobacteria that rapidly grow around the acupuncture insertion point as a result of contaminated cotton wool swabs, towels and hot-pack covers. There is a long incubation period but the infection usually leads to large abscesses and ulcers,” they wrote.

oh so THESE don't cause disease if improperly used?

“So far, more than 50 cases have been described globally. In most cases … bacteria were transmitted from the patient’s skin flora or the environment because of inadequate skin disinfection before acupuncture,” they wrote.

So this can happen in ANY penetrative procedure with inadequate skin disinfection.  Why not say “inadequate skin disinfection causes disease” oh! that won’t get people to read the article! That also won’t be bashing acupuncture per se!

There have been at least five outbreaks of hepatitis B virus infection that are linked to acupuncture.

In most of these cases, the sources were infected patients and the virus was transmitted through dirty needles, although in one case, it was the acupuncturist who was the source, they said.

Let’s see in China a good number of patients are already Hep B positive.  How do we know that they didn’t already have it in the first place?  This is also why needles are never to be re-used.  If the physician doesn’t practice good practice guidelines, then blame the idiot not the acupuncture procedure!

Funny about the acupuncturist being the source.  What did he do? Take a needle, jab himself, then jab the patient?

Using these hands with anything can spread disease. Why single out acupuncture?

And finally:

The paper also laid out the possibility of transmission of hepatitis C and HIV via acupuncture.

Yeah, the “possibility”.  Why, because it doesn’t happen that way.  Geez. Scare tactics.

There’s this phenomenon called Post Traumatic Stress Disorder.  A pilot study funded by the National Institutes of Health suggest Acupuncture may be of use for it.  Again, this is something that Chinese medicine practitioners have known for quite a while now.

According to the National Institute of Mental Health’s Website (http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/post-traumatic-stress-disorder-ptsd/index.shtml), PSTD can be defined as “…an anxiety disorder that some people get after seeing or living through a dangerous event.”  Kinda like watching the 3-D version of Avatar without 3-D glasses.  Not like I’ve tried.

The website has a great way of explaining the situation to laymen:

When in danger, it’s natural to feel afraid. This fear triggers many split-second changes in the body to prepare to defend against the danger or to avoid it. This “fight-or-flight” response is a healthy reaction meant to protect a person from harm. But in PTSD, this reaction is changed or damaged. People who have PTSD may feel stressed or frightened even when they’re no longer in danger.

So people reading the newspapers everyday have PTSD?  I mean they feel stressed and frightened despite not being in immediate danger…  Seriously though, I’ve heard stories of people having recurring nightmares because of this.

Soldiers may go home with their bodies healed, but their psyches scarred.

So what exactly does Post Traumatic Stress Disorder mean clinically?

PTSD can cause many symptoms. These symptoms can be grouped into three categories:

1. Re-experiencing symptoms:

• Flashbacks—reliving the trauma over and over, including physical symptoms like a racing heart or sweating
• Bad dreams
• Frightening thoughts.

Re-experiencing symptoms may cause problems in a person’s everyday routine. They can start from the person’s own thoughts and feelings. Words, objects, or situations that are reminders of the event can also trigger re-experiencing.

2. Avoidance symptoms:

• Staying away from places, events, or objects that are reminders of the experience
• Feeling emotionally numb
• Feeling strong guilt, depression, or worry
• Losing interest in activities that were enjoyable in the past
• Having trouble remembering the dangerous event.

Things that remind a person of the traumatic event can trigger avoidance symptoms. These symptoms may cause a person to change his or her personal routine. For example, after a bad car accident, a person who usually drives may avoid driving or riding in a car.

3. Hyperarousal symptoms:

• Being easily startled
• Feeling tense or “on edge”
• Having difficulty sleeping, and/or having angry outbursts.

Hyperarousal symptoms are usually constant, instead of being triggered by things that remind one of the traumatic event. They can make the person feel stressed and angry. These symptoms may make it hard to do daily tasks, such as sleeping, eating, or concentrating.

It’s natural to have some of these symptoms after a dangerous event. Sometimes people have very serious symptoms that go away after a few weeks. This is called acute stress disorder, or ASD. When the symptoms last more than a few weeks and become an ongoing problem, they might be PTSD. Some people with PTSD don’t show any symptoms for weeks or months.

In traditional Chinese medicine, there is such a notion as a vicious cycle caused by severe, sudden emotions.  These affect certain organs, which in turn increase our susceptibility to the aforementioned emotions.  For example, frustration upsets the Liver, causing Qi stagnation, which leads to a greater tendency to feel anger or frustration – a vicious cycle.  Sometimes, the person is able to correct this on their own – as evidenced by healing after a time.  Sometimes, it gets stuck.  Chinese medicine works by breaking that cycle.

Let’s look at the study: (from http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/spotlight/092107.htm)

Acupuncture May Help Symptoms of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder

A pilot study shows that acupuncture may help people with posttraumatic stress disorder. Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is an anxiety disorder that can develop after exposure to a terrifying event or ordeal in which grave physical harm occurred or was threatened. Traumatic events that may trigger PTSD include violent personal assaults, natural or human-caused disasters, accidents, or military combat.

Can it treat my stress secondary to watching Knicks games?  That’s very terrifying these days, and will be more so if we don’t get any free agents this summer…

Anyway here’s the gist:

Michael Hollifield, M.D., and colleagues conducted a clinical trial examining the effect of acupuncture on the symptoms of PTSD. The researchers analyzed depression, anxiety, and impairment in 73 people with a diagnosis of PTSD. The participants were assigned to receive either acupuncture or group cognitive-behavioral therapy over 12 weeks, or were assigned to a wait-list as part of the control group. The people in the control group were offered treatment or referral for treatment at the end of their participation.

And the results?

The researchers found that acupuncture provided treatment effects similar to group cognitive-behavioral therapy; both interventions were superior to the control group. Additionally, treatment effects of both the acupuncture and the group therapy were maintained for 3 months after the end of treatment.

The limitations of the study are consistent with preliminary research. For example, this study had a small group of participants that lacked diversity, and the results do not account for outside factors that may have affected the treatments’ results.

The abstract may be found here: (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17568299)

The purpose of the study was to evaluate the potential efficacy and acceptability of accupuncture for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). People diagnosed with PTSD were randomized to either an empirically developed accupuncture treatment (ACU), a group cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT), or a wait-list control (WLC). The primary outcome measure was self-reported PTSD symptoms at baseline, end treatment, and 3-month follow-up. Repeated measures MANOVA was used to detect predicted Group X Time effects in both intent-to-treat (ITT) and treatment completion models. Compared with the WLC condition in the ITT model, accupuncture provided large treatment effects for PTSD (F [1, 46] = 12.60; p < 0.01; Cohen’s d = 1.29), similar in magnitude to group CBT (F [1, 47] = 12.45; p < 0.01; d = 1.42) (ACU vs. CBT, d = 0.29). Symptom reductions at end treatment were maintained at 3-month follow-up for both interventions. Accupuncture may be an efficacious and acceptable nonexposure treatment option for PTSD. Larger trials with additional controls and methods are warranted to replicate and extend these findings.

Right, I’ll re-read the layman version.

Here’s the reference:

Michael Hollifield, Nityamo Sinclair-Lian, Teddy D. Warner, and Richard Hammerschlag, “Acupuncture for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder: A Randomized Controlled Pilot Trial.” The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, June 2007.