→Choi et al: nope |
|||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 233: | Line 233: | ||
* Huang et al 2012 is recent and could probably be used, but again comes down to "there's no consensus and more research is needed". |
* Huang et al 2012 is recent and could probably be used, but again comes down to "there's no consensus and more research is needed". |
||
:::::::Again these sources are long on speculation and short on consensus, often with competing models. Worth a mention, certainly not appropriate for saying "acupuncture is effective through X mechanism". I would see it basically as a list of possible explanation without much more text than that list. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
:::::::Again these sources are long on speculation and short on consensus, often with competing models. Worth a mention, certainly not appropriate for saying "acupuncture is effective through X mechanism". I would see it basically as a list of possible explanation without much more text than that list. [[User:WLU|WLU]] <small>[[User talk:WLU|(t)]] [[Special:Contributions/WLU|(c)]] Wikipedia's rules:</small>[[WP:SIMPLE|<sup><span style='color:#FFA500'>simple</span></sup>]]/[[WP:POL|<sub><span style='color:#008080'>complex</span></sub>]] 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
||
::::::::I have not seen anyone suggest that the text be changed to say "acupuncture is effective through X mechanism", I have only seen Acuhealth critique the current article lead, based on his/her assertion that it is POV and uses weak sources. The sources I provided are all peer-reviewed and secondary sources. The sources all seem to agree that some evidence suggests the possibility of some point specificity, but most interpretations beyond that are speculative. The current lead uses 3 sources to support the text ''"Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points"'', however, 2 of those sources are not peer-reviewed (the critical narrative [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trick_or_Treatment][http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/section.php?xSec=122 'trick or treatment'] and the [http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/section.php?xSec=122 'Chinese medicine times']). The single [https://mn.uio.no/fysikk/english/research/projects/bioimpedance/publications/papers/meridian_rev.pdf peer-reviewed source] included there says ''"Based on this review, the evidence does not conclusively support the claim that acupuncture points or meridians are electrically distinguishable. However, the preliminary findings are suggestive and offer future directions for research based on in-depth interpretation of the data"''; this is not the same as ''"not found any histological or physiological correlates"'', as is currently stated in our lead. It seems to me that it should be simple to solve your current debate here by qualifying the statement in the lead about 'physical correlates' with some acknowledgement that there is indeed a debate based on scientific investigation, because ''"preliminary findings are suggestive"'' - however ''"the evidence does not conclusively support the claim that acupuncture points or meridians are distinguishable"''.[[User:Puhlaa|Puhlaa]] ([[User talk:Puhlaa|talk]]) 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
::::::::That all said, if consensus is reached, it would be more appropriate to update the body of the article to reflect any "preliminary research" that is discussed in the available secondary sources, before the lead is updated (IE: lead should summarize the body).[[User:Puhlaa|Puhlaa]] ([[User talk:Puhlaa|talk]]) 19:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC) |
|||
===References=== |
===References=== |
Revision as of 19:56, 22 May 2013
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Revert of promotional material
Hello, I am trying to link acupuncture to myofascial therapy by noting the work of C. Chan Gunn-Intramusclular Stimulation, by using a stainless steel needle micro trauma triggering the healing cascade and unlocking tight muscle bands known as trigger points embedded in myofascial muscle tissue. Part of the Acupuncture article (A parallel theory is offered by C. Chan Gunn, MD. Gunn uses a technique in which he take advantage of acupuncture needle to insertion into tight bands. These bands have a overlapping pattern to the meridian of TCM. He called his technique Intramuscular Stimulation or IMS. He stated in his textbook the differences in IMS and traditional acupuncture as: 1. IMS requires a medical diagnosis. 2. A medical examination is imperative. 3. The placement of the needles is indicated by the examination. 4. Knowledge of modern anatomy is essential. 5. An immediate positive change in the subjective and objective finding is expected.[58]) Click. Srodrigu (talk) 05:18, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hi Srodrigu, the material you are attempting to add is promotional of one person's work and so is not appropriate for this article. Also, the description makes assumptions about traditional acupuncture therapy that many acupuncturists, especially in hospitals in China or those that focus on orthopedics, would take issue with.Herbxue (talk) 14:07, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
- Any TCM-specific application or claim would better be dealt with in that article. I don't see why IMS as a subtype of acupuncture couldn't be mentioned somewhere, but the material written by Srodrigu needs secondary sources and not be written "in universe" which can come off as promo. Perhaps Sroridgu can create a new section for their proposal and we can work at it here at TALK. Regards, DVMt (talk) 20:28, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Gunn is a notable physician, author and practitioner. So why can't I promote his work, discoveries, research and theories? Gunn was able to separate the traditional practice of Acupuncture from the raw truth of what the stainless steel needle does to the muscle fibers-myofascial tissues. Once this connection is made then "Acupuncture" can be connected to a vast arsenal of other myofascial therapies.Srodrigu (talk) 02:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The best route to take is find secondary sources, (research, systematic reviews) that shares Gunn's view. I agree with you that the TCM elements of the article has too much weight and overshadows the non-meridian (anatomical) approach to acupuncture. To boot, the recent evidence shows an increasing role for acupuncture as a complementary therapy. I understand that the 'raw truth' is when you separate the TCM from acupuncture, the Westernized "medical acupuncture" is a reasonable adjunct for soft tissue therapy. Nevertheless, it boils down to the sources. A good PubMed search about acupuncture theory is my suggested starting point. DVMt (talk) 03:19, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- The problem I have with this issue is that acupuncture has already included a musculoskeletal or ortho-neuro approach for a very long time. It is not a unique "discovery" of western science (or one particular notable writer) that acupuncture leads to specific effects on muscles via motor points, ashi points, trigger points, etc. It is just marketing to say that this is attributable to Dr. Gunn (or Travell, or Callison, or Seem, or Chaitow, or whoever thinks they invented something). I would love to see this perspective fleshed out more in the article, but not the promotion of a single doctor's "style" and definitely not the distortion that Chinese acupuncturists have been somehow ignorant of anatomy and the effect of acupuncture on muscular function.Herbxue (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
- I agree that acupuncture has long been used for NMS dysfunction and that Gunn isn't the only one who has taken a more anatomical based application as opposed to the TCM version. I don't know much about TCM personally, so I won't be able to add much depth to that debate. So, it looks like we're on the same page; I doubt we will be able to attribute it non any "guru" let alone Gunn, but non-TCM theory is a good start as any. DVMt (talk) 19:06, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
1. I wanted to expose the world to the work of Gunn, because I noticed that other authors having their work "promoted" in wiki. ie see john f. barnes on the myofascial release page. 2. Gunn was the author who found the origin muscle twitch-response phenomena that allows the a dense tight muscle to relax, immediately. 3. Another goal of my contribution is to link all myofascial therapy with myofascial release techniques from hands-on manual therapy to the release done with a stainless steel needles. The ultimate goal is to unlock the tight muscles as a treatment for complex MS issues.4. I was taught that the ancient Chinese did not study internal anatomy due to taboos.Srodrigu (talk) 03:17, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I see. WP generally does not endorse individuals because they can be mis-used as a soapbox. See alternative medicine how the article reeks of soapboxing of various CAM skeptics. I have serious doubts that Gunn was the one who 'discovered' the twitch-response to acupuncture. If so, you need an MEDRS ref to prove the claim. We agree that acupuncture may be beneficial for soft tissue dysfunction. Regarding TCM applications, we don't know so we're just speculating, if they took anatomy. Perhaps your focus can be to show the anatomical application of acupuncture, aka medical acupuncture. DVMt (talk) 03:27, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, here is the article that Gunn uncovered from the archives and referenced in his textbook; Cannon WB, Rosenblueth A. The supersensitivity of denervated structures: a law of denervation. New York, NY: MacMillan; 1949. ... as noted it is note his work but it was he who tied up the loose ends. I have to interject, the fine-filament-stainless-steel needle therapy you are calling "acupuncture" is the true therapy for many Muscle-skeletal-connective tissue ... so called "soft tissue" dysfunction. Apologies for the "s but words, definitions, mythologies, traditions, descriptions and semantic are getting in the way of this topic. You can questions "acupuncture" or TCM but the truth of what is actually happening within the muscle and flesh is the truth and has to be presented to the public. How do I begin to get this idea critiqued so it can be presented?Srodrigu (talk) 04:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I wanted to expose the world to the work of Gunn, because I noticed that other authors having their work "promoted" in wiki. I removed the example you gave from the myofascial release article. If you have any other examples, please let me know.
I am confused, why did you remove the example? This is valid work, a real contribution and real science. ... who are you they is not sigSrodrigu (talk) 16:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- I don't know who removed what example. TCM acupuncture is very different than 'acupuncture' (minus the meridians and acu points woo). We agree on these key points. We disagreed on the promotion of individuals and the fact you didn't have any current citations. DVMt (talk) 16:21, 12 March 2013 (UTC) Edit: Checking on the diffs, it appears that User:TippyGoomba has removed your entry at MFR. I agree with him/her that these should be backed by secondary sources. Do you know what we mean when we state 'secondary source'? Read up on WP:MEDRS that should give you the gist of how to edit medically-related articles at WP. Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
- It is actually not very different. "Acupuncture" comes from China and Chinese ("TCM") Acupuncturists use a number of approaches, including channel theory (what you term "woo"), microsystems (more woo but also utilized by western acupuncturists, most notably French neurologists), and an anatomical approach, including trigger points. "TCM" does not exclude an anatomical approach, having been systematized in the 1950's, on the contrary it embraces this approach. That is why, even in China, people mainly seek acupuncture for musculoskeletal or neurological disfunction, even though it can treat a wide variety of conditions.
- Interesting, I didn't realize the Chinese (could) use an anatomical (non acu-point, meridian) approach towards acu. I also agree that some of Srodigu content may be applicable, I just think he/she should present the material on the talk page first. That way it will be less likely of being reverted and we can all chip in. DVMt (talk) 22:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Here is what I would like to add below Gunn alternative idea related to acupuncture :::: Taking all this data into consideration one can conceptualize how a stainless steel wire or probe can effectively treat trigger points and thus myofascial and neuropathic syndromes; 1. Inserting the thin flexible solid stainless steel needle into the skin and muscle caused microscopic tissue injury. That injury ignites the healing cascade of repair which repaired the tissue injury and any local secondary injury. Muscle stem cells proliferate to restore muscle health and power. 2. The stainless steel needle, once it entered the muscle, triggered a muscular re-polarization creating a muscle twitch response. After the twitch, the muscle would relax. The relaxed muscle would be a little longer, less tense and tight. Better able to fit and correctly realign a joint.[1]
Myofascial Trigger Point Therapy is grouped in to Myofascial Release Therapy and thus an additional class or type should be offered.Srodrigu (talk) 02:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Hello all, my attempt here is to link TCM/Acupuncture to a form of myofasical therapy and to clarify what is happening within the flesh. This is a truth that the ancient chinese discipline called Acupuncture which includes inserting needles into to specific points in the skin is both a mythology surrounding two important scientific facts.Srodrigu (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Myology: The way of thinking is related to a social, economic, ethical, religious, governmental and health/wellness. Facts: 1. Tissue injury that ignite the healing cascade. 2. Muscle release or reboot.[2]Srodrigu (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Another issues that is left out is the issues of myofascial tissues disease which are illness that are the results of improper therapy that will lead to a number of medical conundrums. Myofascial Trigger Point Therapy is grouped in to Myofascial Release Therapy.Srodrigu (talk) 16:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- What is the specific edit you are suggesting? TippyGoomba (talk) 17:27, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, Trigger Points are at the core of a lot of medical issues as per Travell. Some of the most complex pain, neurologic, vascular, movement, gait, balance and gut issues are related to the secondary effects of TPs. A complete list is in Travell text books. The beauty of all myofascial therapy is to release, unlock, breakup these TPs. Myofascial Release Therapy is on a spectrum from hands-on release to acupuncture, dry needles and Travell’s trigger point injections. Readers need understand the connections and the clue is in Gunn’s text which are his tenants explaining IMS vs Acupuncture whic was deleted a few months ago.[3][4][5]Srodrigu (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Synthesis violation in the lead
Other reviews have concluded that positive results reported for acupuncture are too small to be of clinical relevance and may be the result of inadequate experimental blinding,[6] or can be explained by placebo effects[7][8] and publication bias.[9][10]
- A 2009 usurped systematic review is being used (Madsen, 2009) to state the 2012 reviews effects are "too small to be of clinical relevance and may be the result of experimental blinding". The claim that acupuncture can be explained by the placebo effect (Singh, Ernst, 2008), (Ernst, 2006) is outdated research and the publication bias has nothing to do with the new reviews whatsoever. It is dated as well. For these reasons, this sentence should be removed from the lead. DVMt (talk) 03:03, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Agree. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
- Done. Good work! Ok, part 2:
- Agree. --Mallexikon (talk) 06:37, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
Synthesis in modern era
Acupuncture has been the subject of active scientific research both in regard to its basis and therapeutic effectiveness since the late 20th century, but it remains controversial among medical researchers and clinicians.[11] In 2006, a BBC documentary Alternative Medicine filmed a patient undergoing open heart surgery allegedly under acupuncture-induced anesthesia. It was later revealed that the patient had been given a cocktail of weak anesthetics that in combination could have a much more powerful effect. The program was also criticized for its fanciful interpretation of the results of a brain scanning experiment.[12][13]
This paragraph is grossly disjointed; acupuncture has arguably gone 'mainstream' as a complementary therapy which is recommended in Cochrane reviews for pain, muscular and neurological issues (as per the systematic reviews on effectiveness in the lead). Furthermore a random 2006 BBC Documentary is hardly notable in the grand scheme of acupuncture and could be interpreted as 'cherry picking' in worst case scenarios. Also Ernst (2007) states that acupuncture 'remains controversial among medical researchers and clinicians' which opposes the newer reviews which states the opposite, i.e. further integration into the mainstream, increased prevalence of use and increased research demonstrating effectiveness for specific medical conditions. DVMt (talk) 04:05, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
- Well, I think it's safe to say that acupuncture "remains controversial among medical researchers and clinicians" - it's reliably sourced and a source date of 2006 or 2007 doesn't really outdate it... And BBC documentaries tend to be notable events (we have two different sources dealing with this particular one). So if your suggestion is to delete this whole paragraph, I wouldn't agree. How about just shortening the BBC stuff a little? --Mallexikon (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2013 (UTC)
Srodigu: the official introduction!
- I'm new to wiki and not in any way a writer, but have been using "acupuncture" or fine-filament-stainless steel and (hollow) stainless steel hypodermic needles in my office of 15 years. IMO what needs to be done is to a clarify what all these words mean. Acupuncture is not what I thought it was in 1997 and have to confess the ancient doctrines are confusing and irrelevant in todays society. But the truth of the raw data as to what a fine-filament-stainless steel needle does to the flesh can be simplified into 2 events. 1. Triggering the healing cascade. 2. Activating the twitch response in muscles. That is it! The tradition and mythology around those 2 events is just that a myth. See Gunn alternative thought about the needles as it relates to myofascial dysfunction. Gunn's IMS and Travell trigger point injections are all part of myofascial therapy on a spectrum from hands-on to needles. Word clarity would greatly help everyone understand this therapySrodrigu (talk) 02:21, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Ok. In order to help improve the article, what suggestions are you making? Perhaps review one section at a time, starting with the lead. DVMt (talk) 03:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Two things I'd like to contribute: 1. Please start with the body and not the lead. The lead should reflect the article as a whole so any changes should be made to the body, then bring up proposed lead changes on the talk page. This article is monitored by many many people as it is a controversial subject, so please do not be offended if your edits are reverted. Just make your case as best you can. 2. You have strong opinions that are shared by many, but also opposed by many. I would only agree with a more culturally neutral definition of acupuncture IF it had developed in parallel in different cultures with similar practices but different theories. It did not. Acupuncture would not exist as a practice if it had not been developed primarily in China. There would be no so-called trigger point dry needling. The would be no filiform needles. The needles used were defined in the Huang Di Nei Jing and nobody else knew or cared about Acupuncture until the 20th century. So, please go ahead and edit boldly, but anything that looks like revisionist history is likely to reverted until we can agree on statements by consensus.Herbxue (talk) 04:26, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
- Good idea to start with the body rather than the lead and good advice overall DVMt (talk) 14:16, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
Physical correlates of acupoints
This interesting study contributed by Acuhealth unfortunately does not meet the requirements of a reliable source for medical articles. The sources you deleted, on the other hand, did; they're also not outdated. Good faith edit, but I still have to revert it. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 06:11, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The aforementioned research by members at Department of Biological Science, Sungkyunkwan University, Department of Chemistry and Nano Science, Ewha Womans University and the Graduate Program for Health Science and Technology, Sungkyunkwan University, was rejected as unreliable. However, the research is accepted, peer reviewed material and shows distinct characteristics of both acupuncture points and the meridians they are on.Acuhealth (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You may find the research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology more acceptable. Researchers from MIT and the University of Michigan utilized MRI research to demonstrate that autonomic nervous system (ANS) responses to acupuncture emanate from “distinct subregions” of “brain circuitry.” True acupuncture activated the secondary somatosensory cortex (S2), insula and the mid-cingulate cortex. The heart rate (HR) deceleration and skin conductance response (SCR) “magnitude of response was greater following real acupuncture” than with sham acupuncture. This research may allow for the acceptance of the edit. The source:[14]Acuhealth (talk) 14:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
In reality, there are numerous studies from the most prestigious universities worldwide showing that true acupuncture points, when needled, activate and deactivate distinct areas of the brain and endocrine system whereas sham acupuncture does not. At this point, that is not considered a controversial topic in that it has been proven repeatedly in controlled, randomized trials of sufficient size and variable controls. Acuhealth (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This next study is quite fascinating: [15] Here, we find that researchers have found "electroencephalographic similarities of acupressure induced sedation and general anesthesia as assessed by bispectral index and spectral edge frequency." In this instance, needles were not required at the acupoints but rather pressure.Acuhealth (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Dr. Cho's book, Neuro-Acupuncture written by Cho, Wong, Falton, shows not only does acupuncture SJ5 exist but that it functionally acts to stimulate the auditory cortex of the brain. As denoted by historical Chinese medicine texts, the function of this acupoint is to benefit hearing. Dr. Cho is a professor of Radiological Sciences and Director of functional Brain Imaging Laboratory for Acupuncture Research (BILAR). University of California, Irvine, California. From 979-1985, he was Professor of Radiology (Physics) and Co-director of Imaging Research Center, Columbia University, New York, New York. Dr. Cho is a member of the US National Academy of Sciences and has won numerous awards including the Distinguished Scientist Award: International Workshop on Physics and Engineering in Medical Imaging; Organizing Committee of International Workshop on Physics and Engineering in Medical Imaging,March 15-18, 1982, Asilomar, California U.S.A. To read his book on Neuro-Acupuncture: [16] Acuhealth (talk) 14:34, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
You note that one reference is accepted, Trick or Treatment[17]. This piece is largely a specific attack on homeopathy and chiropractic care. It is highly politically charged. One author of the book, for example, was dismissed [18]from Exeter University over the Smallwood incident. It seems that the author took exception to Prince Charles' private secretary of the cost-effectiveness of CAM therapies. Politically charged books such as this are not exactly purely scientific investigations, the Smallwood incident is no exception. I suggest that this reference be struck. Granted the lawsuit from the British Chiropractic Association against the other author for material in this book, Singh, was dropped. Nonetheless, the controversy of this book surrounded other elements such as the dedication of the book to the Prince of Wales. Perhaps this was a tongue in cheek retort given the politically charged incident with his personal secretary. Acuhealth (talk) 14:51, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The next reference that you note is acceptable is most clearly not and is entirely misleading. It is a support piece of acupuncture therapy with two negative quotes by Felix Mann in it. [19] This is not peer reviewed literature and has no place as a reference. The article supports the efficacy of acupuncture and to cite it as an example of supporting the non-existience of acupuncture points is misleading. It is written by a singular author and is not part of a randomized, controlled trial or basic research. It is a nice historical piece, however, and nice reading but is not supportive of the claim for which it is used to cite. Rather, it supports the contrary. Moving to the Felix Mann quotes contained within the article cited, Mann wrote, "The meridians of acupuncture are no more real than the meridians of geography. If someone were to get a spade and tried to dig up the Greenwich meridian, he might end up in a lunatic asylum. Perhaps the same fate should await those doctors who believe in [acupuncture] meridians.... The traditional acupuncture points are no more real than the black spots a drunkard sees in front of his eyes...." This is hardly a scientific investigation or a conclusion based on research. I suggest this reference be struck immediately. This is a charged, opinion by Felix Mann and is taken out of context from Bauer's article. Highly inappropriate and goes to undermining the integrity of Wikipedia.Acuhealth (talk) 15:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
The final reference given to support the opinion that no scientific correlates exist regarding the existence of acupuncture meridians and acupuncture points actually goes so far as to suggest that studies showing the existence of acupuncture meridians are suggestive of the fact that they do exist[20]. The sole purpose of the study was to investigate whether or not there are distinguishable electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians. This does not preclude the research on oxygen levels showing the existence of both acupuncture points and meridians, nor does this negate Cho's MRI investigations showing the existence of acupuncture points. Further, the cited work used to support the notion that meridians do not exist goes so far as to say that future research may be able to detect the meridians with more sensitive equipment. The conclusion from the study reads, "While inadequate, the evidence is more supportive of the claim that acupuncture meridians are electrically distinct. The meridian studies were generally of higher quality and were more inclined to consider polarization effects than the point studies. While the results are suggestive, additional studies should be performed to determine whether the results are replicable. Preliminary interpretation of the data suggests that deeper, subcutaneous tissue layers may be an important component in the increased capacitance and decreased resistance reported at acupuncture meridians. If so, future studies may consider using larger surface electrodes (1 cm) separated by sufficient distance to minimize the contribution of superficial layers to the impedance or admittance values. Alternatively, they may use invasive electrodes. With the development of sophisticated impedance analyzers, frequency-related changes in impedance are relatively easy to perform and make this area of research ripe for further exploration."Acuhealth (talk) 15:31, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
This revision was undone by yet another user and referred to an explanation in talk. However, this user made no explanation in response to my response to the first undo. Citing non-MEDRS, the user did an undo. However, I demonstrated that the non-MEDRS was the material stating that there were no scientific correlates for acupuncture points and meridians. As shown above, there are a plethora of peer reviewed medical studies showing that the acupuncture points exist and function and the meridians. The user needs to respond to this research before performing and undo. Let the science speak for itself. The current version showing a scientific correlate cites studies from MIT, University of Michigan and more. The original statement removed was inaccurate and cited opinion papers and unsupportive documentation. Acuhealth (talk) 17:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
There is now a conflict between the lead - "Scientific investigation has found a measurable correlate for acupuncture points" and the section on Physical correlates of ... points .. meridians - "no research has established any consistent anatomical structure or function for either acupuncture points or meridians". The research cited in the lead would be acceptable in the Physical correlates section, but is probably too new (mostly primary sources) for the lead. There is also mounting primary research on correlates for meridians eg Zhang WB et al: Understanding propagated sensation along meridians by volume transmission in peripheral tissue, Chin J Integr Med. 2013; 19(5):330-9 and Silberstein M: Do acupuncture meridians exist? Correlation with referred itch (mitempfindung) stimulus and referral points, Acupunct Med. 2012; 30:17-20. These are primary sources too, but probably merit inclusion in the Physical correlates section. This article needs to reflect ongoing research in this area. What do other editors think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzores (talk • contribs) 23:27, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
- Acuhealth, you presented 13 (!) sources for your claim - and 12 of those do not support the claim about a physical correlate of acupoints at all! The one source that does still doesn't qualify as MEDRS. And this article of course has to reflect ongoing research, but only within the framework of what is verifiable - those primary sources are not reliable enough. That's why Wikipedia has guidelines about MEDRS. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 04:45, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
How does the research from Sungkyunkwan University/Ewha University not meet modern scientific standards[21]? These are perhaps the two most prestigious universities in Korea. It clearly shows partial oxygen pressure is higher at acupuncture points and through the meridians. Samsung Group owns Sungkyunkwan and the nanotechnology group is top notch and built with Samsung financial support. I need a reason why you feel that this is not some of the best research ever conducted. It is a scientifically validated, repeatable phenomenon. What aspect of the amperometric oxygen microsensor detections of partial oxygen pressure do you find unsubstantial or putative? How is this unverifiable, it hails from a top research institution worldwide. Ewha gave Korea its first female doctor, lawyer, court justice and prime minister. Sungkyunkwan has a dual degree program with Ohio State University and a joint program with MIT. Further, another study citing adenosine related to acupuncture point stimulation is widely accepted along with other research submitted showing endocrine and brain center correlates. I am now suspicious that this is an attack on scientific data in an effort to mollify the research on acupuncture. Acuhealth (talk) 04:53, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I'm not saying this study doesn't meet modern scientific standards... I'm only saying it's not the kind of source that the MEDRS guidelines require (cause it's a primary source): we need secondary or tertiary sources here. Please read WP:MEDRS. --Mallexikon (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- If you want to add these sources, let's add them one at a time. To start, propose an edit which uses the Hong et al source and quote directly from the source to support your edit. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, reading above, it appears that the particular source I gave as an example is the poorest. Let's start with the other 12. Please pick one and let's get started. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why is the Hong et al considered the poorest? It is clear, hard, objective data. Acuhealth (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- (Please indent your posts using colons.) Apparently the journal sucks. Why don't we focus on your other sources first and we can talk about the journal when the rest is resolved. Would you like to propose an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Actually, I don't think the journal sucks. But the article in question is only a primary source. Cheers, --Mallexikon (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Here are three important works:
- (Please indent your posts using colons.) Apparently the journal sucks. Why don't we focus on your other sources first and we can talk about the journal when the rest is resolved. Would you like to propose an edit? TippyGoomba (talk) 05:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Why is the Hong et al considered the poorest? It is clear, hard, objective data. Acuhealth (talk) 05:20, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Oh, reading above, it appears that the particular source I gave as an example is the poorest. Let's start with the other 12. Please pick one and let's get started. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Minagawa, Munenori, Yasuzo Kurono, Tatsuyo Ishigami, Atsushi Yamada, Toshinori Kakamu, Ryoichi Akai, and Junichiro Hayano. "Site-specific organ-selective effect of epifascial acupuncture on cardiac and gastric autonomic functions." Autonomic Neuroscience (2013).
A PET-CT study on specificity of acupoints through acupuncture treatment on migraine patients. Jie Yang1, Fang Zeng1, Yue Feng1,Li Fang1, Wei Qin2, Xuguang Liu1, Wenzhong Song3, Hongjun Xie3 , Ji Chen1, Fanrong Liang1.
Point specificity in acupuncture. Chinese Medicine 2012, 7:4 doi:10.1186/1749-8546-7-4. Emma M Choi, Fang Jiang, John C Longhurst. Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine CA.
The first study shows specific points correlate to specific internal organ responses. The second demonstrates PET-CT verification that the point exists and exerts a specific brain response to eliminate migraines. The third demonstrates point specificity.Acuhealth (talk) 05:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hemodynamic changes associated with acupuncture are also scientific correlates as found in: Arai, Hiroyuki, Yoshifumi Saijo, Tomoyuki Yambe, and Nobuo Yaegashi. "RADIAL ARTERY HEMODYNAMIC CHANGES RELATED TO ACUPUNCTURE."Acuhealth (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let's start with just one to keep things simple. Suggest and edit and quote from the source in support of your edit. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- And please keep in mind that WP:MEDRS requires secondary or tertiary sources... --Mallexikon (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Let's start with just one to keep things simple. Suggest and edit and quote from the source in support of your edit. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:32, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hemodynamic changes associated with acupuncture are also scientific correlates as found in: Arai, Hiroyuki, Yoshifumi Saijo, Tomoyuki Yambe, and Nobuo Yaegashi. "RADIAL ARTERY HEMODYNAMIC CHANGES RELATED TO ACUPUNCTURE."Acuhealth (talk) 05:30, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Physical correlates of acupoints, Part Two
Naturally, after an exhaustive explanation of the garbage literature that has been allowed to stand and the redaction of qualified peer reviewed studies I am convinced that this is an attempt to wear credible resources down until the article reverts. Here is but one of many quotes ready to go:
- Researchers at the University of California School of Medicine (Irvine, California) note, “Recent evidence shows that stimulation of different points on the body causes distinct responses in hemodynamic, fMRI and central neural electrophysiological responses.” The investigators reviewed MRI results and noted that “stimulation of different sets of acupoints leads to disease-specific neuronal responses, even when acupoints are located within the same spinal segment.”' Point specificity in acupuncture.
Acuhealth (talk) 05:39, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's the kind of suggestion I was looking for! I cleaned it up a bit for readability, i hope you don't mind. TippyGoomba (talk) 05:44, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Don't forget to indent. No one has comment on your suggestion yet. See WP:CONSENSUS. TippyGoomba (talk) 06:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Acuhealth, please answer some questions. What do you think of the purpose of this or any other article at Wikipedia? Do you think it is supposed to (according to our policies) only cover scientific research? Do you think it is supposed to only cover controversies? Do you think it is only supposed to cover history? Seriously, do you know anything about Wikipedia's content policies? -- Brangifer (talk) 06:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The purpose of the acupuncture article is to cover acupuncture objectively. It most certainly includes opinion and, in this case, opinion trumps scientific data. Going to consensus building as a wikipedia policy, rewording to make an implied consensus taking into account variances is a standard wikipedia policy. I see the reversion meaning that the change was not acceptable to someone. The article should reflect objective findings and not present opinion as truth. It could be stated, "In my opinion, there is no correlate...." However, this is not stated and the new research is rejected. Please weigh in on the presented research demonstrating biomedical correlates for acupuncture points including MRI brain state changes, hemodynamics, oxygen pressure differentials and endocrine point specificity. Please read the above quotes and make your comment on whether or not the biomedical correlate issue is valid based on the objective evidence and presented data.Acuhealth (talk) 06:31, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I obviously have a reason for asking. Keep in mind that objectivity is not a specific goal for ALL content. Some content documents the opinions of believers and skeptics, which is obviously subjective. NPOV requires that opposing POV be presented in articles, especially when there is controversy, and the removal of such content violates NPOV and is seen as whitewashing, which is not allowed. The controversy must be visible, not hidden, and you are well aware that acupuncture is controversial. In China it is even being used less and less as modern medicine is seen as more effective, but it has a long tradition there and still exists side by side with modern medicine. BTW, what is your exact position(s) at Five Branches University and Healthcare Medicine Institute? -- Brangifer (talk) 07:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Please weigh in on the aforementioned quote, Researchers at the University of California School of Medicine (Irvine, California) note, “Recent evidence shows that stimulation of different points on the body causes distinct responses in hemodynamic, fMRI and central neural electrophysiological responses.” The investigators reviewed MRI results and noted that “stimulation of different sets of acupoints leads to disease-specific neuronal responses, even when acupoints are located within the same spinal segment.” Point specificity in acupuncture. Let's go with this and build consensus, I invite input on your view of the scientific validity, Acuhealth (talk) 06:43, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- "Stimulation of different sets of acupoints leads to disease-specific neuronal responses, even when acupoints are located within the same spinal segment”... I'm not even quite sure what this is supposed to mean... What statement do you want to use this as a source for, then? --Mallexikon (talk) 06:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Thank you for asking. This quote is in response to a request for a quote on why there is a biomedical correlate for the existence of an acupuncture point. You had rejected the oxygen sensor study from two of the most prestigious universities in Korea. This study is from the USA. I thought that might avoid ethnocentric bias but including a different country of origin. In this quote, we see that specific acupuncture points are verifiable for specific biological effective actions. I find it more than wholly appropriate to delete the assertion that there is "no correlate" for acupuncture points.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 06:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That is a typical finding of research that is extremely generic and tentative in nature. The quoted text has nothing to say about whether a particular person might benefit from paying money to someone who says they practise acupuncture, nor does it throw any light on whether acupuncture has ever been helpful for anyone. The proposed text might as well be "obviously the body will give various responses when needles are stuck in it, and we have measured some of those responses, but have no idea whether they mean anything". Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- The purpose of the quote was not to suggest medical benefits although there are numerous studies on that topic. Rather, this was to verify that acupuncture points exert specific biological responses as opposed to non-acupuncture points. The quote is specific to the edit in questions wherein I suggest removing the line "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points," because at least two of the supportive references are poor and the third is irrelevant (see earlier talk) and further, that biomedical correlates have been established. Simply, acupuncture points have specific effects on the human body hemodynamically and neurologically and that these effects are not caused by non-acupuncture points.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 07:10, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Per MEDRS, we don't normally report on preliminary research that isn't confirmed by independent researchers and then as part of larger reviews. This type of thing takes years. These results you cite are highly speculative conclusions. It's sad to see this happen. Roughly speaking, every spot in the body has a corresponding "spot" in the brain. (Yes, that's very simplistically put!) There is nothing new about that, therefore affecting a spot on the skin is going to trigger some sort of response in a specific region of the brain. That proves nothing regarding acupuncture or potential effects on health. We need MUCH better research to conclude such things, but believers who perform this type of research immediately draw such unwarranted conclusions, which is one of the reasons that Chinese (and now Korean) research of this type is highly suspect and we'd like to see better research done, preferably by nonbelievers. If there really is something, it will show, regardless of the belief structure of the scientists involved. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- In response to "why anybody should pay for it", although I was not asserting specific medical benefits, I will list one very recent study showing acupuncture "was effective in lowering baseline BG (blood glucose) and modulating the change in BG."[22]A relatively minor study, but it is very recent and somewhat interesting. Naturally, there are better studies than this with more substantive medical findings. Nonetheless, it shows a biomedical correlate to electroacupuncture and blood glucose changes so it is somewhat relevant to the discussion as to whether or not it is valid to assert there is no correlate.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 07:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- HRV is heart rate variability and acupuncture has been shown to improve HRV, an important measure of cardiovascular health. “HRV changes significantly during auricular acupuncture…” and “HRV total increases during auricular acupuncture….” come from one study[23]. Another study from International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience notes that acupuncture “causes the modulation of cardiac autonomic function.” You mentioned non-believers, the International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience is rather staid if not stoic. They don’t need to believe, they need proof of medical effectiveness and found it.[24] I suppose no one will like this either and you'll stick with the assertion that there is no correlate. There are many.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 07:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I invite comment on the HRV quotes. Clearly, a correlate between biomedical findings and acupuncture point stimulation. Further, the sham acupuncture points in placebo controlled, randomized studies did not affect HRV whereas verum acupuncture does affect HRV. If you find this interesting and helpful in clarifying the correlate issue in question, please note. Medical fact is stranger than fiction.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 07:40, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Specific acupuncture points increase antioxidant activity and decreases oxidative stress according to new research. [25]TriumvirateProtean (talk) 12:57, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- A basic tenet of MEDRS for Wikipedia is to "respect secondary sources." At this point, I have given several sources from several of the most prestigious universities in the world. The current quote stating there is no correlate in biomedicine gives three non-MEDRS sources as explained in Talk. I suggest an immediate redaction of the "no correlate" statement as it is inaccurate and does not reflect MEDRS. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- To the effectiveness question by one reviewer, ““auricular acupuncture and intranasal midazolam were similarly effective for the treatment of dental anxiety,” as published in the prestigious Anesthesia & Analgesia from MDs from Hannover Medical School, Germany.[26]TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Dr. Guidice, MD notes in the New England Journal of Medicine that acupuncture is effective for the treatment of endometriosis.[27] TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- To the effectiveness question by one reviewer, ““auricular acupuncture and intranasal midazolam were similarly effective for the treatment of dental anxiety,” as published in the prestigious Anesthesia & Analgesia from MDs from Hannover Medical School, Germany.[26]TriumvirateProtean (talk) 13:09, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Per MEDRS, we don't normally report on preliminary research that isn't confirmed by independent researchers and then as part of larger reviews. This type of thing takes years. These results you cite are highly speculative conclusions. It's sad to see this happen. Roughly speaking, every spot in the body has a corresponding "spot" in the brain. (Yes, that's very simplistically put!) There is nothing new about that, therefore affecting a spot on the skin is going to trigger some sort of response in a specific region of the brain. That proves nothing regarding acupuncture or potential effects on health. We need MUCH better research to conclude such things, but believers who perform this type of research immediately draw such unwarranted conclusions, which is one of the reasons that Chinese (and now Korean) research of this type is highly suspect and we'd like to see better research done, preferably by nonbelievers. If there really is something, it will show, regardless of the belief structure of the scientists involved. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:14, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
Are you suggesting an edit? If so can you concisely restate it along with source(s) you wish to use? TippyGoomba (talk) 15:17, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Yes, I am suggesting that the line in paragraph one stating, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points" be redacted and supplanted with "Scientific investigation has found biomedical correlates for acupuncture points." The research was detailed in this talk section, parts 1 and 2. The Sungkyunkwan University (owned by Samsung Group) research cited oxygen pressure levels higher at acupuncture points and showed the meridians. [28] The University of California report detailed hemodynamic and MRI findings on specific physical correlates for acupuncture points and specific biomedical actions for each point.[29] The remarkable findings of HRV correlates for acupuncture point stimulation vs. placebo controls and sham acupuncture shows that acupuncture increases HRV and therefore benefits cardiovascular health. [30] The International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience concurs stating, acupuncture “causes the modulation of cardiac autonomic function.”[31] These are a few examples of supportive material for the edit. I also detailed the three citations for the existing, erroneous assertion that requires redaction. One citation is a discredited book and is an opinion piece, one is completely out of context and includes expletives in an unscientific manner and the third seems like valid research but only goes to the argument of the electroconductivity model of acupuncture points. This is completely detailed in Talk.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- So there appear to be four sources:
- Yes, I am suggesting that the line in paragraph one stating, "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points" be redacted and supplanted with "Scientific investigation has found biomedical correlates for acupuncture points." The research was detailed in this talk section, parts 1 and 2. The Sungkyunkwan University (owned by Samsung Group) research cited oxygen pressure levels higher at acupuncture points and showed the meridians. [28] The University of California report detailed hemodynamic and MRI findings on specific physical correlates for acupuncture points and specific biomedical actions for each point.[29] The remarkable findings of HRV correlates for acupuncture point stimulation vs. placebo controls and sham acupuncture shows that acupuncture increases HRV and therefore benefits cardiovascular health. [30] The International Society for Autonomic Neuroscience concurs stating, acupuncture “causes the modulation of cardiac autonomic function.”[31] These are a few examples of supportive material for the edit. I also detailed the three citations for the existing, erroneous assertion that requires redaction. One citation is a discredited book and is an opinion piece, one is completely out of context and includes expletives in an unscientific manner and the third seems like valid research but only goes to the argument of the electroconductivity model of acupuncture points. This is completely detailed in Talk.TriumvirateProtean (talk) 15:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Hong et al, 2012 - this is a primary source of a single acupuncture point measuring a single biomarker on a small number of subjects. It does not validate that all acupuncture points exist, that they are based on changes in skin surface oxygen level or that these changes are related to any of the health outcomes for acupuncture. I would not support citing this based on WP:MEDRS emphasis on secondary sources.
- Choi et al, 2012 - this is a recent secondary source, and could be integrated. I don't think it's definitive, and I'll definitely need to read it in detail to comment.
- Gao et al, 2012 - this is a primary source studying anaesthetized rats, not people. It shouldn't be cited.
- Kurono et al., 2011 - this is a primary study in 11 subjects.
- Only Choi et al 2012 seems to be worth even discussing. Have I missed any sources? May I suggest starting a new section specifically for Choi so we can focus on whether, and how to include it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Created below. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Here are a few secondary sources that might help inform your consensus-building: Puhlaa (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Electrical Characterization of Acupuncture Points: Technical Issues and Challenges Ahn 2007
- Characterizing Acupuncture Stimuli Using Brain Imaging with fMRI - A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Literature Huang et al 2012
- How do acupuncture and moxibustion act? - Focusing on the progress in Japanese acupuncture research Kawakita et al. 2006
- Neuroanatomical basis of acupuncture treatment for some common illnesses Cheng 2009
- Here are a few secondary sources that might help inform your consensus-building: Puhlaa (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Created below. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:24, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Only Choi et al 2012 seems to be worth even discussing. Have I missed any sources? May I suggest starting a new section specifically for Choi so we can focus on whether, and how to include it? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:04, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Ahn, 2007 is pretty old, six years, and is probably redundant to Colbert et al. 2011 which is already on the page (and includes Ahn as a co-author).
- Cheng, 2009 perhaps, but again is speculative.
- Kawakita, 2006 is pretty old, focusses on Japanese acupuncture and moxibustion, but might be useable.
- Huang et al 2012 is recent and could probably be used, but again comes down to "there's no consensus and more research is needed".
- Again these sources are long on speculation and short on consensus, often with competing models. Worth a mention, certainly not appropriate for saying "acupuncture is effective through X mechanism". I would see it basically as a list of possible explanation without much more text than that list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- I have not seen anyone suggest that the text be changed to say "acupuncture is effective through X mechanism", I have only seen Acuhealth critique the current article lead, based on his/her assertion that it is POV and uses weak sources. The sources I provided are all peer-reviewed and secondary sources. The sources all seem to agree that some evidence suggests the possibility of some point specificity, but most interpretations beyond that are speculative. The current lead uses 3 sources to support the text "Scientific investigation has not found any histological or physiological correlates for traditional Chinese concepts such as qi, meridians and acupuncture points", however, 2 of those sources are not peer-reviewed (the critical narrative [1]'trick or treatment' and the 'Chinese medicine times'). The single peer-reviewed source included there says "Based on this review, the evidence does not conclusively support the claim that acupuncture points or meridians are electrically distinguishable. However, the preliminary findings are suggestive and offer future directions for research based on in-depth interpretation of the data"; this is not the same as "not found any histological or physiological correlates", as is currently stated in our lead. It seems to me that it should be simple to solve your current debate here by qualifying the statement in the lead about 'physical correlates' with some acknowledgement that there is indeed a debate based on scientific investigation, because "preliminary findings are suggestive" - however "the evidence does not conclusively support the claim that acupuncture points or meridians are distinguishable".Puhlaa (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That all said, if consensus is reached, it would be more appropriate to update the body of the article to reflect any "preliminary research" that is discussed in the available secondary sources, before the lead is updated (IE: lead should summarize the body).Puhlaa (talk) 19:56, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Again these sources are long on speculation and short on consensus, often with competing models. Worth a mention, certainly not appropriate for saying "acupuncture is effective through X mechanism". I would see it basically as a list of possible explanation without much more text than that list. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:03, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
References
I've put in a reflist so I can see the actual studies, if anyone knows how, can they throw in one o' them fancy boxes that doesn't mess with the formating? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:29, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Cannon WB, Rosenblueth A. The Supersensitivity of Denervated Structures: A Law of Denervation.New York: MacMillan; 1949.
- ^ Cannon WB, Rosenblueth A. The Supersensitivity of Denervated Structures: A Law of Denervation.New York: MacMillan; 1949.
- ^ http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/mpacms/at/article.php?id=32377
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_needling
- ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myofascial_release
- ^ Madsen, M. V.; Gotzsche, P. C; Hrobjartsson, A. (2009). "Acupuncture treatment for pain: systematic review of randomised clinical trials with acupuncture, placebo acupuncture, and no acupuncture groups". BMJ. 338: a3115. doi:10.1136/bmj.a3115. PMC 2769056. PMID 19174438.
- ^ Attention: This template ({{cite pmid}}) is deprecated. To cite the publication identified by PMID 16420542 , please use {{cite journal}} with
|pmid= 16420542
instead. - ^ Singh, S (2008). "The Truth about Acupuncture". Trick or treatment: The undeniable facts about alternative medicine. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 103–106. ISBN 978-0-393-06661-6.
"These initial conclusions have generally been disappointing for acupuncturists: They provide no convincing evidence that real acupuncture is significantly more effective than placebo." (p. 104)
{{cite book}}
: Unknown parameter|coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (help) - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Lee2006
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
Tang1999
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Cite error: The named reference
pmid17265547
was invoked but never defined (see the help page). - ^ Simon Singh (2006-03-26). "A groundbreaking experiment ... or a sensationalized TV stunt?". The Guardian.
- ^ Simon Singh (14 February 2006). "Did we really witness the 'amazing power' of acupuncture?". Daily Telegraph.
- ^ Napadow, V., Lee, J., Kim, J., Cina, S., Maeda, Y., Barbieri, R., Harris, R. E., Kettner, N. and Park, K. (2012), Brain correlates of phasic autonomic response to acupuncture stimulation: An event-related fMRI study. Hum. Brain Mapp.. doi: 10.1002/hbm.22091.
- ^ Litscher, Gerhard. "Effects of acupressure, manual acupuncture and Laserneedle® acupuncture on EEG bispectral index and spectral edge frequency in healthy volunteers." European journal of anaesthesiology 21.01 (2004): 13-19.
- ^ Neuro-Acupuncture, Volume 1: Neuroscience Basics, Zang Hee Cho Ph.D.
- ^ Singh, S; Ernst E (2008). "The Truth about Acupuncture". Trick or treatment: The undeniable facts about alternative medicine. W. W. Norton & Company. pp. 39–90. ISBN 978-0-393-06661-6. ""Scientists are still unable to find a shred of evidence to support the existence of meridians or Ch'i" (p72 – UK Ed.), "The traditional principles of acupuncture are deeply flawed, as there is no evidence at all to demonstrate the existence of Ch'i or meridians" (p107 – UK Ed.) "Acupuncture points and meridians are not a reality, but merely the product of an ancient Chinese philosophy" (p387 – UK Ed.)"
- ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edzard_Ernst
- ^ Bauer, M (2006). "The Final Days of Traditional Beliefs? – Part One". Chinese Medicine Times 1 (4): 31.
- ^ Ahn, Andrew C.; Colbert, Agatha P.; Anderson, Belinda J.; Martinsen, ØRjan G.; Hammerschlag, Richard; Cina, Steve; Wayne, Peter M.; Langevin, Helene M. (2008). "Electrical properties of acupuncture points and meridians: A systematic review". Bioelectromagnetics 29 (4): 245–56. doi:10.1002/bem.20403. PMID 18240287.
- ^ Minyoung Hong, Sarah S. Park, Yejin Ha, et al., “Heterogeneity of Skin Surface Oxygen Level of Wrist in Relation to Acupuncture Point,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2012, Article ID 106762, 7 pages, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/106762.
- ^ Peplow, Philip V., and Soo Min Han. "Repeated Application of Electroacupuncture Ameliorates Hyperglycemia in Obese Zucker Diabetic Fatty Rats." Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies (2013). Department of Anatomy, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
- ^ Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 817378, 7 pages. doi:10.1155/2012/817378. Sino-European Transcontinental Basic and Clinical High-Tech Acupuncture Studies—Part 1: Auricular Acupuncture Increases Heart Rate Variability in Anesthetized Rats. Xin-Yan Gao, Kun Liu, Bing Zhu and Gerhard Litscher.
- ^ Kurono Y, Minagawa M, Ishigami T, Yamada A, Kakamu T, Hayano J. Auton Neurosci. Acupuncture to Danzhong but not to Zhongting increases the cardiac vagal component of heart rate variability. 2011 Apr 26;161(1-2):116-20. Epub 2011 Jan 7.
- ^ Liu, J. Y., and L. M. Liu. "[Influence of electroacupuncture intervention on free radical metabolism in athletes undergoing intensive endurance exercise]." Zhen ci yan jiu= Acupuncture research/[Zhongguo yi xue ke xue yuan Yi xue qing bao yan jiu suo bian ji] 38, no. 1 (2013): 48-51.
- ^ Anesth Analg 2007;104:295-300
- ^ Endometriosis. Linda C. Giudice, M.D., Ph.D. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:2389-2398June 24, 2010
- ^ Minyoung Hong, Sarah S. Park, Yejin Ha, et al., “Heterogeneity of Skin Surface Oxygen Level of Wrist in Relation to Acupuncture Point,” Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine, vol. 2012, Article ID 106762, 7 pages, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/106762.
- ^ Susan Samueli Center for Integrative Medicine, Department of Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Irvine CA 92697-4075, USA. jcl@uci.edu.
- ^ Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Volume 2012 (2012), Article ID 817378, 7 pages. doi:10.1155/2012/817378. Sino-European Transcontinental Basic and Clinical High-Tech Acupuncture Studies—Part 1: Auricular Acupuncture Increases Heart Rate Variability in Anesthetized Rats. Xin-Yan Gao, Kun Liu, Bing Zhu and Gerhard Litscher.
- ^ Kurono Y, Minagawa M, Ishigami T, Yamada A, Kakamu T, Hayano J. Auton Neurosci. Acupuncture to Danzhong but not to Zhongting increases the cardiac vagal component of heart rate variability. 2011 Apr 26;161(1-2):116-20. Epub 2011 Jan 7.
Choi et al
The above sections are a mess, per my own suggestion, here's a new section to discuss the one source that might be worth including: Choi et al, 2012. Discussing sham acupuncture controls, it states "The difference between sham and verum acupuncture remains unclear." It then goes into why. This is an interesting discussion that could be included in some form, but the equivocal nature must be reflected. The article does not indicate a consensus exists.
Next is a discussion of pain studies, which opens with "The majority of studies refuting the principle of point specificity evaluated the role of acupuncture in pain relief." Again, it discusses why, and again it's equivocal but useful in contextualizing future possible research.
Next is a discussion of "hemodynamic" studies - heart rate and blood pressure. This section would need to be treated with great caution, mixing electroacupuncture, exercise, rat and cat studies. Amazingly to me, they only cite four studies, but somehow draw conclusions from them. I really wonder if some cherry-picking is occurring. Why these four studies? Why the focus on exercising subjects (two studies), rats (one study) and cats (one study)? Is that the sum of the literature? Overally I would say this section is "suggestive" of point-specific responses, but no slam-dunk. It really reads like shit research.
Next is neurological studies - fMRI stuff. Similar to the hemodynamic section, it's really just summaries of single studies - why those studies? Why cats again? While they say "The point-specific actions resulting from stimulation of different acupoints in controlled laboratory trials confirm that needling different points on the body produces more than just placebo responses, given that placebo acupuncture is not associated with differential or acupoint-specific responses in anesthetized animals" the bold part seems quite relevant - people aren't cats.
Overall, given the totality of literature that exists for acupuncture, this seems like a shoddy, shallow, cherry-picked selection of evidence that is unduly extrapolated to humans. If this were my wikipedia, I wouldn't cite it at all. I'd probably mock it. However, since it's not my wikipedia, at best I would give it one sentence saying there is some evidence that certain points may have specific effects. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:23, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tough room. OK, let's try a more heavy weight study on the specific physiological responses evoked by acupuncture.[1] The Annals of Internal Medicine is widely accepted as is the University of Maryland School of Medicine from which the lead author hails. As with an investigation, there are limitations but this finding is in agreement with your assertion that one sentence saying there is "some evidence" is appropriate. I don't think this research is worth mocking. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's Berman et al. 2004. It's 9 years old, it's a primary source, and it's only talking about one specific type of pain - osteoarthritis. Of the knee. The page already discusses acupuncture and the knee using several much more recent meta-analyses. It also has no bearing on the possible mechanism for acupuncture effectiveness. It doesn't add anything to Choi et al. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Agreed, unrelated to Choi. I wasn't sure where to put it since it was an effort to reference physiological responses. Maybe move this comment to a better section?TriumvirateProtean (talk) 18:12, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- That's Berman et al. 2004. It's 9 years old, it's a primary source, and it's only talking about one specific type of pain - osteoarthritis. Of the knee. The page already discusses acupuncture and the knee using several much more recent meta-analyses. It also has no bearing on the possible mechanism for acupuncture effectiveness. It doesn't add anything to Choi et al. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:07, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- Tough room. OK, let's try a more heavy weight study on the specific physiological responses evoked by acupuncture.[1] The Annals of Internal Medicine is widely accepted as is the University of Maryland School of Medicine from which the lead author hails. As with an investigation, there are limitations but this finding is in agreement with your assertion that one sentence saying there is "some evidence" is appropriate. I don't think this research is worth mocking. TriumvirateProtean (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2013 (UTC)
- ^ Berman, Brian M., Lixing Lao, Patricia Langenberg, Wen Lin Lee, Adele MK Gilpin, and Marc C. Hochberg. "Effectiveness of Acupuncture as Adjunctive Therapy in Osteoarthritis of the KneeA Randomized, Controlled Trial." Annals of internal medicine 141, no. 12 (2004): 901-910.