Acupuncture - Explore the Science & Experts | ideXlab

Scan Science and Technology

Contact Leading Edge Experts & Companies

Acupuncture

The Experts below are selected from a list of 123033 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform

Acupuncture – Free Register to Access Experts & Abstracts

Tinyun Ho – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • comprehensive evaluation of gene expression signatures in response to electroAcupuncture stimulation at zusanli st36 acupoint by transcriptomic analysis
    BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, 2017
    Co-Authors: Jingshan Wu, Tinyun Ho, Hsinyi Lo, Chiacheng Li, Fengyuan Chen, Chienyun Hsiang

    Abstract:

    ElectroAcupuncture (EA) has been applied to treat and prevent diseases for years. However, molecular events happened in both the Acupunctured site and the internal organs after EA stimulation have not been clarified. Here we applied transcriptomic analysis to explore the gene expression signatures after EA stimulation. Mice were applied EA stimulation at ST36 for 15 min and nine tissues were collected three hours later for microarray analysis. We found that EA affected the expression of genes not only in the Acupunctured site but also in the internal organs. EA commonly affected biological networks involved in cytoskeleton and cell adhesion, and also regulated unique process networks in specific organs, such as γ-aminobutyric acid-ergic neurotransmission in brain and inflammation process in lung. In addition, EA affected the expression of genes related to various diseases, such as neurodegenerative diseases in brain and obstructive pulmonary diseases in lung. This report applied, for the first time, a global comprehensive genome-wide approach to analyze the gene expression profiling of Acupunctured site and internal organs after EA stimulation. The connection between gene expression signatures, biological processes, and diseases might provide a basis for prediction and explanation on the therapeutic potentials of Acupuncture in organs.

Claudia M Witt – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • characteristics of Acupuncture treatment associated with outcome an individual patient meta analysis of 17 922 patients with chronic pain in randomised controlled trials
    PLOS ONE, 2013
    Co-Authors: Hugh Macpherson, Alexandra C Maschino, George Lewith, Nadine E Foster, Claudia M Witt, Andrew J Vickers

    Abstract:

    Recent evidence shows that Acupuncture is effective for chronic pain. However we do not know whether there are characteristics of Acupuncture or acupuncturists that are associated with better or worse outcomes.An existing dataset, developed by the Acupuncture Trialists’ Collaboration, included 29 trials of Acupuncture for chronic pain with individual data involving 17,922 patients. The available data on characteristics of Acupuncture included style of Acupuncture, point prescription, location of needles, use of electrical stimulation and moxibustion, number, frequency and duration of sessions, number of needles used and acupuncturist experience. We used random-effects meta-regression to test the effect of each characteristic on the main effect estimate of pain. Where sufficient patient-level data were available, we conducted patient-level analyses.When comparing Acupuncture to sham controls, there was little evidence that the effects of Acupuncture on pain were modified by any of the Acupuncture characteristics evaluated, including style of Acupuncture, the number or placement of needles, the number, frequency or duration of sessions, patient-practitioner interactions and the experience of the acupuncturist. When comparing Acupuncture to non-Acupuncture controls, there waslittle evidence that these characteristics modified the effect of Acupuncture, except better pain outcomes were observed when more needles were used (p=0.010) and, from patient level analysis involving a sub-set of five trials, when a higher number of Acupuncture treatment sessions were provided (p<0.001).There was little evidence that different characteristics of Acupuncture or acupuncturists modified the effect of treatment on pain outcomes. Increased number of needles and more sessions appear to be associated with better outcomes when comparing Acupuncture to non-Acupuncture controls, suggesting that dose is important. Potential confounders include differences in control group and sample size between trials. Trials to evaluate potentially small differences in outcome associated with different Acupuncture characteristics are likely to require large sample sizes.

  • Acupuncture for migraine prophylaxis a randomized controlled trial
    Canadian Medical Association Journal, 2012
    Co-Authors: Hui Zheng, Claudia M Witt, Stephanie Roll, Jie Yan, Guojie Sun, Ling Zhao, Wenjing Huang, Xiaorong Chang, Hongxing Zhang, Dejun Wang

    Abstract:

    Background: Acupuncture is commonly used to treat migraine. We assessed the efficacy of Acupuncture at migraine-specific Acupuncture points compared with other Acupuncture points and sham Acupuncture. Methods: We performed a multicentre, single-blind randomized controlled trial. In total, 480 patients with migraine were randomly assigned to one of four groups (Shaoyang-specific Acupuncture, Shaoyang-nonspecific Acupuncture, Yangming-specific Acupuncture or sham Acupuncture [control]). All groups received 20 treatments, which included electrical stimulation, over a period of four weeks. The primary outcome was the number of days with a migraine experienced during weeks 5–8 after randomization. Our secondary outcomes included the frequency of migraine attack, migraine intensity and migraine-specific quality of life. Results: Compared with patients in the control group, patients in the Acupuncture groups reported fewer days with a migraine during weeks 5–8, however the differences between treatments were not significant ( p > 0.05). There was a significant reduction in the number of days with a migraine during weeks 13–16 in all Acupuncture groups compared with control (Shaoyang-specific Acupuncture v. control: difference –1.06 [95% confidence interval (CI) –1.77 to –0.5], p = 0.003; Shaoyang-nonspecific Acupuncture v. control: difference –1.22 [95% CI –1.92 to –0.52], p p = 0.011). We found that there was a significant, but not clinically relevant, benefit for almost all secondary outcomes in the three Acupuncture groups compared with the control group. We found no relevant differences between the three Acupuncture groups. Interpretation: Acupuncture tested appeared to have a clinically minor effect on migraine prophylaxis compared with sham Acupuncture. Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT00599586

  • Acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain a randomized controlled trial
    JAMA Internal Medicine, 2006
    Co-Authors: Benno Brinkhaus, Claudia M Witt, Klaus Linde, Susanne Jena, Andrea Streng, Stefan Wagenpfeil, Dominik Irnich, Heinzulrich Walther, Dieter Melchart, Stefan N Willich

    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is widely used by patients with low back pain, although its effectiveness is unclear. We investigated the efficacy of Acupuncture compared with minimal Acupuncture and with no Acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients were randomized to treatment with Acupuncture, minimal Acupuncture (superficial needling at nonAcupuncture points), or a waiting list control. Acupuncture and minimal Acupuncture were administered by specialized Acupuncture physicians in 30 outpatient centers, and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed standardized questionnaires at baseline and at 8, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome variable was the change in low back pain intensity from baseline to the end of week 8, as determined on a visual analog scale (range, 0-100 mm). RESULTS: A total of 298 patients (67.8% female; mean +/- SD age, 59 +/- 9 years) were included. Between baseline and week 8, pain intensity decreased by a mean +/- SD of 28.7 +/- 30.3 mm in the Acupuncture group, 23.6 +/- 31.0 mm in the minimal Acupuncture group, and 6.9 +/- 22.0 mm in the waiting list group. The difference for the Acupuncture vs minimal Acupuncture group was 5.1 mm (95% confidence interval, -3.7 to 13.9 mm; P = .26), and the difference for the Acupuncture vs waiting list group was 21.7 mm (95% confidence interval, 13.9-30.0 mm; P<.001). Also, at 26 (P=.96) and 52 (P=.61) weeks, pain did not differ significantly between the Acupuncture and the minimal Acupuncture groups. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture was more effective in improving pain than no Acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic low back pain, whereas there were no significant differences between Acupuncture and minimal Acupuncture.

Dominik Irnich – One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.

  • Acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain a randomized controlled trial
    JAMA Internal Medicine, 2006
    Co-Authors: Benno Brinkhaus, Claudia M Witt, Klaus Linde, Susanne Jena, Andrea Streng, Stefan Wagenpfeil, Dominik Irnich, Heinzulrich Walther, Dieter Melchart, Stefan N Willich

    Abstract:

    BACKGROUND: Acupuncture is widely used by patients with low back pain, although its effectiveness is unclear. We investigated the efficacy of Acupuncture compared with minimal Acupuncture and with no Acupuncture in patients with chronic low back pain. METHODS: Patients were randomized to treatment with Acupuncture, minimal Acupuncture (superficial needling at nonAcupuncture points), or a waiting list control. Acupuncture and minimal Acupuncture were administered by specialized Acupuncture physicians in 30 outpatient centers, and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed standardized questionnaires at baseline and at 8, 26, and 52 weeks after randomization. The primary outcome variable was the change in low back pain intensity from baseline to the end of week 8, as determined on a visual analog scale (range, 0-100 mm). RESULTS: A total of 298 patients (67.8% female; mean +/- SD age, 59 +/- 9 years) were included. Between baseline and week 8, pain intensity decreased by a mean +/- SD of 28.7 +/- 30.3 mm in the Acupuncture group, 23.6 +/- 31.0 mm in the minimal Acupuncture group, and 6.9 +/- 22.0 mm in the waiting list group. The difference for the Acupuncture vs minimal Acupuncture group was 5.1 mm (95% confidence interval, -3.7 to 13.9 mm; P = .26), and the difference for the Acupuncture vs waiting list group was 21.7 mm (95% confidence interval, 13.9-30.0 mm; P<.001). Also, at 26 (P=.96) and 52 (P=.61) weeks, pain did not differ significantly between the Acupuncture and the minimal Acupuncture groups. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture was more effective in improving pain than no Acupuncture treatment in patients with chronic low back pain, whereas there were no significant differences between Acupuncture and minimal Acupuncture.

  • Acupuncture in patients with tension type headache randomised controlled trial
    BMJ, 2005
    Co-Authors: Dieter Melchart, Claudia M Witt, Benno Brinkhaus, Stefan Wagenpfeil, A Streng, A Hoppe, V Pfaffenrath, Michael Hammes, Josef Hummelsberger, Dominik Irnich

    Abstract:

    Objective To investigate the effectiveness of Acupuncture compared with minimal Acupuncture and with no Acupuncture in patients with tension-type headache.

    Design Three armed randomised controlled multicentre trial.

    Setting 28 outpatient centres in Germany.

    Participants 270 patients (74% women, mean age 43 (SD 13) years) with episodic or chronic tension-type headache.

    Interventions Acupuncture, minimal Acupuncture (superficial needling at non-Acupuncture points), or waiting list control. Acupuncture and minimal Acupuncture were administered by specialised physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over eight weeks.

    Main outcome measure Difference in numbers of days with headache between the four weeks before randomisation and weeks 9-12 after randomisation, as recorded by participants in headache diaries.

    Results The number of days with headache decreased by 7.2 (SD 6.5) days in the Acupuncture group compared with 6.6 (SD 6.0) days in the minimal Acupuncture group and 1.5 (SD 3.7) days in the waiting list group (difference: Acupuncture v minimal Acupuncture, 0.6 days, 95% confidence interval -1.5 to 2.6 days, P = 0.58; Acupuncture v waiting list, 5.7 days, 3.9 to 7.5 days, P < 0.001). The proportion of responders (at least 50% reduction in days with headache) was 46% in the Acupuncture group, 35% in the minimal Acupuncture group, and 4% in the waiting list group.

    Conclusions The Acupuncture intervention investigated in this trial was more effective than no treatment but not significantly more effective than minimal Acupuncture for the treatment of tension-type headache.

    Trial registration number ISRCTN9737659.