paradoxes in acupuncture research: strategies for moving forward
Clicks: 7
ID: 174371
2011
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Popular Article
1.8
/100
7 views
5 readers
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
PopularRanked #879 of 899 articles by views in ACS applied materials & interfaces
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 899 in total.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
In November 2007, the Society for Acupuncture Research (SAR) held an international symposium to mark the 10th anniversary of the 1997 NIH Consensus Development Conference on Acupuncture. The symposium presentations revealed the considerable maturation of the field of acupuncture research, yet two provocative paradoxes emerged. First, a number of well-designed clinical trials have reported that true acupuncture is superior to usual care, but does not significantly outperform sham acupuncture, findings apparently at odds with traditional theories regarding acupuncture point specificity. Second, although many studies using animal and human experimental models have reported physiological effects that vary as a function of needling parameters (e.g., mode of stimulation) the extent to which these parameters influence therapeutic outcomes in clinical trials is unclear. This White Paper, collaboratively written by the SAR Board of Directors, identifies gaps in knowledge underlying the paradoxes and proposes strategies for their resolution through translational research. We recommend that acupuncture treatments should be studied (1) “top down” as multi-component “whole-system” interventions and (2) “bottom up” as mechanistic studies that focus on understanding how individual treatment components interact and translate into clinical and physiological outcomes. Such a strategy, incorporating considerations of efficacy, effectiveness and qualitative measures, will strengthen the evidence base for such complex interventions as acupuncture.
| Reference Key |
langevin2011evidence-basedparadoxes
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | ;Helene M. Langevin;Peter M. Wayne;Hugh MacPherson;Rosa Schnyer;Ryan M. Milley;Vitaly Napadow;Lixing Lao;Jongbae Park;Richard E. Harris;Misha Cohen;Karen J. Sherman;Aviad Haramati;Richard Hammerschlag |
| Journal | ACS applied materials & interfaces |
| Year | 2011 |
| DOI |
10.1155/2011/180805
|
| URL | |
| Keywords |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.