Abstract:The survey identified differences in practice and training between acupuncturists in China and the EU and between EU member states. These differences may inform prioritisation of health conditions for future trials. Innovative research methods are recommended to incorporate the complexity and plurality of acupuncture practice and theory. Creation of collaborative networks is crucial in overcoming these differences to facilitate international, multi-centre clinical trials.
“…28 Use of EA was reported by 39.7% of European acupuncturists (with pain as the most frequently treated condition) and 28.2% of Chinese practitioners (with neurologic conditions, mainly stroke, as most frequently treated). Because some European practitioners refer to the Voll electrodiagnosis system as EA, it is possible that this survey overestimates the number of European acupuncturists who practice traditional EA as defined in this paper.…”
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.
“…28 Use of EA was reported by 39.7% of European acupuncturists (with pain as the most frequently treated condition) and 28.2% of Chinese practitioners (with neurologic conditions, mainly stroke, as most frequently treated). Because some European practitioners refer to the Voll electrodiagnosis system as EA, it is possible that this survey overestimates the number of European acupuncturists who practice traditional EA as defined in this paper.…”
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.
“…Regulation of TCM by the People's Republic of China in 1982 affirms that the State protects, supports, and promotes the development of TCM, as well as its integration with WM (both types of medicine have equal importance, should complement each other, and improve through mutual learning and knowledge exchange). There is a TCM Department at the Ministry of Public Health, 6 and the responsibility of formulating all of the related regulations, policies, and guidelines are entrusted to the State Administration of TCM, which also has the task to build its standardized management and development. 7 TCM is fully covered under the government and private insurance schemes.…”
Section: The Role Of Tcm In the Chinese Contextmentioning
“…It can involve a number of different components and therapies [2], and may often be used alongside moxibustion as "acumoxa therapy", (zhenjiu in Chinese and shinkyu in Japanese), and is often practised with other historical methods such as cupping, bloodletting and modern methods such as electrical stimulation and intradermal needles [3][4][5][6]. Many practitioners use acupuncture alongside herbal medicine especially in countries like China and South Korea [7], but to a lesser degree in Europe and the US [8,9]. In Japan on the other hand, only medical doctors can prescribe herbal medicine; it is illegal for non-physician acupuncturists to prescribe herbal medicine [3].…”
Acupuncture is a complex intervention that manifests varied theories, treatment methods, diagnostic methods and diagnostic patterns. Traditionally based systems of acupuncture (TBSAs) often have their own diagnostic approaches and patterns. Despite the wide variety that can be found amongst TBSAs, is it possible that they share a common background in clinical observation and practice? Research has shown that multiple physiological pathways and mechanisms can be triggered by different acupuncture techniques and methods. It is highly likely that clinicians will have observed some of the effects of these responses and used those observations as feedback to help construct the patterns of diagnosis and their associated treatments. This review briefly examines this possibility. Pattern identification will have developed out of a complex interaction of factors that include; theories current at the time of their development, historical theories, personal choices and beliefs, training, practice methods, clinical observations and the natural feedback that comes from observing how things change once the treatment is applied. Researchers investigating TBSAs and pattern identification need to be more explicit about the systems they have investigated in order to understand the biological basis of pattern identification and their treatments.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.