Trial reportAcupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society2010
Double blinding with a new placebo needle: a further validation study.
Trial report in Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.
- A systematic review of sham acupuncture validation studies.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Pooled it
- Placebo Devices as Effective Control Methods in Acupuncture Clinical Trials: A Systematic Review.PloS one · 2015Pooled it
- Effects on Acupuncturist Blinding: Different Diameters of Double-blind Acupuncture Needles.Alternative therapies in health and medicine · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Can acupuncture treatment be double-blinded? An evaluation of double-blind acupuncture treatment of postoperative pain.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Effect of blinding with a new pragmatic placebo needle: a randomized controlled crossover study.Medicine · 2014Trial
- Design of a randomised acupuncture trial on functional neck/shoulder stiffness with two placebo controls.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2014Trial
- Effect of Acupuncture for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Study Protocol for a Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Central Neurobiological Mechanisms of Acupuncture in Post-Stroke Depression: Multi-Target and Network-Based Regulation.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Review
- Article
- Is Skin-Touch Sham Needle Not Placebo? A Double-Blind Crossover Study on Pain Alleviation.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2015Article
- The Potential of Double Blinding with Two Placebo Acupuncture Needles: A Randomized Controlled Pilot-Trial.Medicines (Basel, Switzerland) · 2014Article
- Does prior acupuncture exposure affect perception of blinded real or sham acupuncture?Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society · 2014Article
- Placebo acupuncture devices: considerations for acupuncture research.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2013Article
- Double-blind acupuncture needle: a potential tool to investigate the nature of pain and pleasure.ISRN Pain · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe masking properties of a new, non-penetrating, double-blind placebo acupuncture needle were demonstrated. Practitioners correctly identified some of the needles; if they were confident in this opinion, they would be unblinded.
objectiveTo investigate the clues that led to correct identification, and the confidence in this decision.
methodsTen acupuncture practitioners, blindly and randomly, applied 10 each of three types of needle to the shoulder: blunt, non-penetrating needles that pressed the skin ('skin-touch placebo needle'); new non-penetrating needles that penetrated soft material (stuffing) but did not reach the skin ('non-touch control needle'); matching penetrating needles. Afterwards, practitioners were asked to judge the type of needle, their confidence in their decision and what clues led them to their judgements.
resultsOf the 30 judgements made by each practitioner, the mean number of correct, incorrect and unidentifiable answers were 10.4 (SD 3.7), 15.2 (SD 4.9) and 4.4 (SD 6.1), respectively. There was no significant difference in the confidence scores for 104 correct (mean, 54.0 (SD 20.2)%) and 152 incorrect (mean, 50.3 (SD 24.3)%) judgements. Twelve needles were identified with 100% confidence-three correct, and nine incorrect. For needles correctly identified, the proportions of non-touch (p = 0.14) and skin-touch (p = 0.17), needles were no greater than chance, but the proportion of penetrating needles correctly identified exceeded chance (p < 0.01). 53% of judgements were made from the "feeling of needle insertion", but 57% of these were wrong.
conclusionPractitioners had a slight tendency to guess the penetrating needles correctly, but were uncertain about most of their judgments, posing only a very small risk to double blinding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.