Are acupoints specific for diseases? A systematic review of the randomized controlled trials with sham acupuncture controls

Table 1 Trial quality of randomized controlled trials with sham acupuncture control

Trial ID	Risk of bias	Sample size/based on calculation^a	Primary outcome	Result^b
Huang 2008 [26]	Unclear	120/No	Global symptoms	+
Flachskampf 2007 [17]	Unclear	160/Yes	Average systolic and diastolic blood pressure	+
Vincent 2007 [21]	Low	103/Yes	Hot flash scores	-
Assefi 2005 [22]^c	Low	100/Yes	Pain (VAS scores)	-
Emmons 2005 [23]	Low	85/Yes	Number of incontinent episodes	-
Forbes 2005 [20]	Low	59/Yes	Self-rated symptom scores	-
Karst 2004 [27]	Unclear	54/unkown	Pain intensity	+
Fink 2002 [18]	Low	45/Yes	Pain (VAS scores)	+
Smith 2002 [24]	Low	593/Yes	Nausea (self-rated)	-
Fireman 2001 [19]	High	32/No	Overall symptoms (VAS scores)	+
Wang 2000 [25]	Unclear	132/No	Pain (VAS scores)	+
Biernacki 1998 [16]	Unclear	23/No	Spirometric value	-

^a Sample size calculation based on the power analysis intended to detect the difference between proper and sham acupuncture treatment.
^b"+" means that the trial detected different outcomes between proper and sham acupuncture; "-" denotes that a trial did not detect different outcomes between proper and sham acupuncture.
^c The proper acupuncture treatment was compared to the pooled sham acupuncture groups (including acupuncture for an unrelated condition, needle insertion at non-acupoints, or noninsertive simulated acupuncture).

ISSN: 1749-8546