toggle visibility Search & Display Options

Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/acutrialsocom/public_html/refbase-ocom/includes/include.inc.php on line 5275
  Record Links
Author (up) Langevin, H.M.; Schnyer, R.; MacPherson, H.; Davis, R.; Harris, R.E.; Napadow, V.; Wayne, P.M.; Milley, R.J.; Lao, L.; Stener-Victorin, E.; Kong, J.-T.; Hammerschlag, R. url  doi
openurl 
  Title Manual and Electrical Needle Stimulation in Acupuncture Research: Pitfalls and Challenges of Heterogeneity Type of Study Journal Article
  Year 2015 Publication Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine Abbreviated Journal J Altern Complement Med  
  Volume 21 Issue 3 Pages 113-128  
  Keywords Research, Alternative Therapies; Electroacupuncture; Acupuncture; Research Methodology; Study Design; Alternative Therapies; Acupuncture -- Methods; Time Factors; Electroacupuncture -- Methods; Treatment Outcomes; Professional Practice, Evidence-Based; Systematic Review; Human; Medline; PubMed; Transcutaneous Electric Nerve Stimulation; Systematic Review -- Evaluation; Meta Analysis -- Evaluation; Decision Making, Clinical  
  Abstract In the field of acupuncture research there is an implicit yet unexplored assumption that the evidence on manual and electrical stimulation techniques, derived from basic science studies, clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, is generally interchangeable. Such interchangeability would justify a bidirectional approach to acupuncture research, where basic science studies and clinical trials each inform the other. This article examines the validity of this fundamental assumption by critically reviewing the literature and comparing manual to electrical acupuncture in basic science studies, clinical trials, and meta-analyses. The evidence from this study does not support the assumption that these techniques are interchangeable. This article also identifies endemic methodologic limitations that have impaired progress in the field. For example, basic science studies have not matched the frequency and duration of manual needle stimulation to the frequency and duration of electrical stimulation. Further, most clinical trials purporting to compare the two types of stimulation have instead tested electroacupuncture as an adjunct to manual acupuncture. The current findings reveal fundamental gaps in the understanding of the mechanisms and relative effectiveness of manual versus electrical acupuncture. Finally, future research directions are suggested to better differentiate electrical from manual simulation, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.  
  Address Department of Anesthesiology, Stanford Medical School, Palo Alto, CA.  
  Publisher Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.
  Language Number of Treatments  
  Treatment Follow-up Frequency Number of Participants  
  Time in Treatment Condition
  Disease Category OCSI Score  
  Notes Accession Number: 103772045. Language: English. Entry Date: 20150312. Revision Date: 20160229. Publication Type: Journal Article; research; systematic review; tables/charts. Journal Subset: Alternative/Complementary Therapies; Editorial Board Reviewed; Expert Peer Reviewed; Peer Reviewed; USA. Special Interest: Evidence-Based Practice. NLM UID: 9508124. Approved no  
  Call Number OCOM @ refbase @ 103772045 Serial 2335  
Permanent link to this record
Select All    Deselect All
 |   | 
Details
   print

Save Citations:
Export Records: