Manual Acupuncture

Ying Cao et al. (2025) · QJM : monthly journal of the Association of Physicians

This randomized trial with 84 emergency department patients explored whether acupuncture started right away, before a diagnosis is confirmed, eases the pain of suspected renal colic, the sudden, severe cramping pain in the back or abdomen that usually comes from a kidney or urinary stone. Imaging to confirm a stone takes time while patients are in extreme pain, and the authors note that the usual painkillers have drawbacks: anti-inflammatory drugs can raise heart risk with higher doses and longer use, and opioids cause side effects including nausea, drowsiness and dependence concerns. Acupuncture, a traditional Chinese medicine technique that places thin needles at specific body points, had already been reported by this group to reduce pain in confirmed cases. Adults aged 18 to 80 with one-sided colicky pain and tenderness over the kidney area, and pain of at least 4 on a 0 to 10 scale, were treated at a Beijing hospital emergency department. Half received needles in the back of both hands at Yaotongdian, a point the authors use for lumbar pain, with the needles lifted and rotated until a soreness or heaviness sensation appeared and then left in for 30 minutes. The other half had very shallow needling with tiny short needles at spots that are not acupuncture points, with no manipulation. Ten minutes after needling, 64.3% of the acupuncture group (27 of 42) had at least halved their pain, versus 16.7% of the sham group (7 of 42), a 47.6 percentage point gap (P < 0.01, so chance is very unlikely to explain it). By 30 minutes the figures were 85.7% versus 31.0%. Average pain scores at 10 minutes were 3.38 versus 6.00. Fewer acupuncture patients needed an analgesic injection by 30 minutes (33.3% vs 59.5%; P = 0.03) and satisfaction scores were higher (4.69 vs 3.69). Patients, outcome assessors and statisticians did not know the group, and patients guessed their group at similar rates, so the blinding held. Surgery and return visits did not differ between groups, and each group had one adverse event (bleeding with acupuncture; nausea and vomiting with sham). The authors suggest that early acupuncture is a safe option for pain relief while a diagnosis is awaited and that it did not appear to interfere with later care. The authors also note that a single acupuncture point may give limited improvement in critically ill patients. They state plainly that the study was done at one center with experienced acupuncturists, included only 3 acupuncture-group patients who turned out not to have a urinary stone, and did not analyze results by stone size. They call for multicenter confirmation.

Jian-Feng Tu et al. (2022) · JAMA network open

This randomized trial with 80 emergency department patients explored whether adding acupuncture to a standard painkiller injection brings faster relief from renal colic, the severe cramping flank pain that occurs when a kidney stone blocks or moves through the urinary tract. Renal colic is described by the authors as one of the worst types of pain, and the guideline first-choice drugs, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medicines such as diclofenac, take time to work: in an earlier study, 37.5% of patients still had moderate or severe pain 15 minutes after an injection. Acupuncture, a traditional Chinese medicine technique that inserts thin needles at specific body points, had shown quick pain reduction in other settings. Adults aged 18 to 75 with stone-related renal colic and pain of at least 4 out of 10 on a visual analog scale (a line on which patients mark their pain) were treated at a Beijing hospital emergency department in 2020. Everyone received a 50 mg diclofenac injection into the muscle. Half then had 30 minutes of needling at Yaotongdian, a point on the back of each hand, with the needles twisted and lifted until a soreness or heaviness sensation (called De qi) appeared. The other half had shallow needle pricks at forearm spots that are not acupuncture points. Ten minutes after needling, 77.5% of the acupuncture group (31 of 40) had at least halved their pain score, compared with 10.0% of the sham group (4 of 40), a gap of 67.5 percentage points (P < .001, so chance is very unlikely to explain it). Average pain fell to 3.0 versus 5.9 out of 10. Acupuncture also led at 0, 5, 15, 20 and 30 minutes (97.5% vs 80.0% at 30 minutes; P = .03). Patients, assessors and the statistician did not know the group, and patients guessed their group about equally often in both arms (P = .48). The advantage faded as the injection took effect: by 45 and 60 minutes both groups had about 92% to 98% responding (P = .62), and only 1 patient needed stronger rescue medication. No adverse events were recorded. The authors suggest acupuncture may serve as an optional add-on for faster relief, since it uses a single point and needs no individual diagnosis. They attribute the absence of a rescue-medication difference to a possible ceiling effect from the diclofenac. They note limitations plainly: one hospital, treatment given after diagnostic imaging, experienced acupuncturists who could not be blinded, and no follow-up of pain beyond 60 minutes or analysis by stone size. They plan to study acupuncture before imaging.

Shuang Liang et al. (2024) · BMJ open

This systematic review and meta-analysis pooled 8 randomized controlled trials with 463 participants (229 receiving acupuncture, 234 receiving a comparator) to test acupuncture for atopic dermatitis — also called atopic eczema — a chronic, relapsing inflammatory skin condition marked by itch (pruritus), dryness and rash. The most frequently needled points were LI11 (Quchi), ST36 (Zusanli) and SP10 (Xuehai), acupoints from Traditional Chinese Medicine's meridian system traditionally used to clear heat, calm itch and support immune balance; here they were tested against blank controls, sham (non-penetrating) acupuncture, or standard medicines like antihistamines and topical steroids. Across the eight trials — two from Germany, two from South Korea and four from China — treatment took two main forms: manual acupuncture (5 trials, mostly needling LI11, ST36 and SP10 for 15-30 minutes, one to seven times weekly over 10 days to 5 weeks) and fire acupuncture, where a heated needle is briefly inserted (3 trials, mainly paired with standard medicine). Two trials added retained press-tack needles at LI11 and the ear point Shenmen. Severity was tracked with the SCORAD index (combining physician and patient ratings) and the EASI (physician-only); itch with a 0-100 visual analogue scale (VAS); and quality of life with the DLQI questionnaire. Acupuncture significantly lowered SCORAD scores compared with control (MD=-10.61, 95% CI -17.77 to -3.45, p=0.004 — a drop large enough to clear the 8.7-point threshold doctors consider clinically noticeable). It cut itch scores even more clearly (VAS MD=-14.71, 95% CI -18.20 to -11.22, p<0.00001 — also above its meaningful-change threshold) and improved DLQI quality-of-life scores (MD=-2.37, p<0.0001), though that change fell short of the threshold considered clinically important. The EASI score, which relies only on a physician's rating rather than patient-reported itch and sleep, showed no significant group difference (p=0.08), and neither did blood IgE levels (p=0.07). Compared specifically with sham (fake-point) acupuncture rather than no treatment, real acupuncture still won out on SCORAD (p<0.00001) — evidence the effect is not just expectation or attention. Only mild, short-lived side effects were reported (bruising, limb numbness, mild stomach upset), and no serious harms occurred in any of the five trials that tracked safety. In atopic dermatitis, these results suggest acupuncture — especially manual or fire acupuncture at LI11, ST36 and SP10 — may help as an add-on to standard treatment, with itch relief the most consistent benefit and a good safety record. The review authors caution that only 8 small trials (463 people total) were available, most had weaknesses like unclear allocation concealment or blinding, and results varied a great deal between studies. Larger, more rigorously blinded multicentre trials are needed before acupuncture earns a stronger recommendation than a promising adjunct therapy.

Min He et al. (2022) · European journal of medical research

This systematic review and meta-analysis combined 30 randomised controlled trials with 4,413 participants to test whether acupuncture helps allergic rhinitis — the sneezing, congestion and runny nose caused by an allergic reaction in the lining of the nose. What sets it apart is that the authors then stress-tested their own findings using trial sequential analysis, a method that asks whether enough participants have been studied for a pooled result to be trusted rather than treated as a chance finding. Trials came mostly from China (22 of 30), with others from Germany, Australia, South Korea and Sweden, ranging from 24 to 981 participants and lasting between two and twelve weeks. Three needling approaches were used: standard needle acupuncture, electroacupuncture, and warm needling, in which mugwort is burned on the needle to heat it. Acupuncture was compared against no treatment, against sham needling at non-acupuncture points, and against antihistamines including cetirizine and loratadine. Symptoms were scored with the Total Nasal Symptom Score and quality of life with the Rhinoconjunctivitis Quality of Life Questionnaire. Against no treatment, acupuncture improved both nasal symptoms and quality of life in adults. Against sham needling it also came out ahead, improving nasal symptoms (mean difference -0.60, 95% CI -1.16 to -0.04, from 489 participants) and quality of life (mean difference -8.47, 95% CI -14.91 to -2.03, from 248 participants) — both statistically significant, since neither confidence interval crosses zero. Against cetirizine or loratadine no clear difference appeared, suggesting acupuncture performs about as well as standard antihistamines. But the trial sequential analysis failed to confirm any of these results, meaning the pooled evidence has not yet accumulated enough participants to be considered reliable. Effects in children and adolescents could not be determined at all. The honest summary is a promising signal that has not yet been confirmed. Performance and attrition bias were serious in most of the included trials, and the authors' own robustness check contradicted their own positive findings. For an adult who would rather not take daily antihistamines, acupuncture is a defensible option on current evidence; it is not yet a demonstrated one. Larger and better-conducted trials, especially in children, are what would settle the question.