Trial reportAlternative therapies in health and medicine2021
Effects on Acupuncturist Blinding: Different Diameters of Double-blind Acupuncture Needles.
Trial report in Alternative therapies in health and medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effect of Acupuncture for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: Study Protocol for a Randomized Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextIt's difficult to conduct experiments using a double-blind design in controlled clinical trials of acupuncture. To resolve this problem with blinding, we designed double-blind needles (DBNs) with stuffing to mimic the resistance felt during insertion of a regular acupuncture needle. Results of the past studies using 0.16 mm diameter DBNs found that the resistance felt by the acupuncturists during insertion successfully blinded them.
objectiveThe study intended to compare the effects on an acupuncturist's blinding when the practitioner used penetrating DBNs with 0.14, 0.16, 0.18, and 0.20 mm diameters.
designWe conducted a double-blind randomized trial.
settingThe study took place at the Japan School of Acupuncture, Moxibustion. and Physiotherapy in Tokyo, Japan.
participantsThe participant was one licensed acupuncturist who performed 320 needle insertions during acupuncture for 20 healthy students, who were familiar with acupuncture and who attended the Japan School of Acupuncture, Moxibustion, and Physiotherapy.
methodsThe acupuncturist was informed she would administer a penetrating or non-penetrating needle; however, only penetrating needles were used. She inserted the four sizes of needles in both of each student's dorsal forearms using an alternating twirling technique. This procedure was repeated once more on another day, with at least one day between sessions. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES: After the acupuncturist removed each needle, we asked her to guess: (1) the type of needle inserted, (2) her level of confidence in the guess, and (3) the clues that contributed to her guess. A chi-squared test was used to determine whether the ratio of correctly or incorrectly identified needles met an expected probability of 0.5 for each needle diameter.
resultsOf the 320 needle insertions, the acupuncturist correctly identified 54% of 0.14 mm, 45% of 0.16 mm, 46% of 0.18 mm, and 50% of 0.20 mm needle insertions. The correct and incorrect ratios of identified needles were fitted with a probability of 0.5, with no significant differences in the acupuncturist's confidence (P = .16). In 99% of the tests, the cue that contributed to the acupuncturist's guess was the feeling of the needle insertion.
conclusionThese findings indicate that the differences in the diameters of DBNs from 0.14 to 0.20 mm didn't significantly affect the acupuncturist's blinding.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33038081PMC8058780W3092120851What 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.