Here a few highlights of my recent survey of acupuncture research, which focused on fMRIs (functional magnetic resonance imaging), published within the last year:
One article I truly appreciate, from the journal Chinese Medicine, elucidates the problems with current placebo control methods used in most acupuncture studies. The article is written from the view of western physiologist and explains which aspects of common placebo controls, often known as “sham” acupuncture, can themselves be therapeutic. The implication of this is that it is highly probable most studies have skewed results that over or under-state the effects of true acupuncture. The production of high quality, scientifically rigorous acupuncture studies is a specific interest of mine because these studies inform the public, the medical community and policy makers about the medicine that I practice. It is concerning to me that poor studies, either due to known or previously misunderstood flaws, will effect perception and further research and use of acupuncture. The study can be found Here.
Additional interesting research illuminates possible effects acupuncture has on the brain. These articles, Here and Here, conclude that acupuncture has an effect on functional complexes in the brain which help modulate pain, anxiety, reward seeking behavior and memory. Studies also show that the different points used create different effect patterns.
A fascinating study, found Here, introduces the concept of expectation as a variable in research. The authors looked into the effect of a positive or diminished positive expectation on the sensation and measurements of pain in 48 subjects. They surmise that acupuncture stimulation inhibits pain via physiological pathways while positive expectation further inhibits pain via emotional pathways; and that the fact that this effect exists must be taken into account in future studies as a variable.
Another interesting article from Germany, Here, shows that acupuncture at the the point GB 43 has no specific effect on the gyrus of Heschl, the auditory area of the brain. I found it interesting that they did not test other points that are said to have a more specific action on the ears, such as GB 2, SJ 17, SI 19 or SJ 21, as it is not a claim of the point GB 43 to be able to specifically effect auditory capabilities.
A similar article, Here, from Massachusetts General Hospital found that fMRI signal changes were not specific to the occipital region of the brain when stimulating acupoints UB 60, GB 37 (both used for eye pathologies) and a nearby non-acupoint. They concluded that “Given the complexity of acupuncture systems and brain activity, additional work is required to determine whether functional neuroanatomical correlates of acupoint specificity can be validated by means of brain imaging tools.” This brings up an interesting point: should we expect the area of the brain related to vision to show signal changes when we stimulate acupoints that effect the eye? As practitioners we do not assume that these points literally clear vision in a measurable way. We use these points because they influence the body as a whole to effect pathology occurring in the eyes. This includes pathologies ranging from problems with the eyelids, infections, eye muscle control, or diseases of specific structures of the eye. Many of these pathologies would not correspond with fMRI signal changes in the visual cortex of the brain associated with vision.
This article out of New York compared true acupuncture stimulation at the point LI 2 with sham acupuncture. The researchers found that “Neuroimaging signal changes appear correlated to saliva production” in the true acupuncture stimulation, as well as an actual increase in saliva, one of the point’s intended effects vs. no change with sham acupuncture.
As all of this research indicates, acupuncture’s mechanisms and effects are still mysterious, though perhaps better understood than in previous years. I am hopeful that future research and reviews concerning the nature of acupuncture research itself will continue to improve the quality and reliability of measurable outcomes and promote a more solid understanding of acupuncture’s potentials and limitatations.
Here a few highlights of my recent survey of acupuncture research, which focused on fMRIs (functional magnetic resonance imaging), published within the last year:
One article I truly appreciate, from the journal Chinese Medicine, elucidates the problems with current placebo control methods used in most acupuncture studies. The article is written from the view of western physiologist and explains which aspects of common placebo controls, often known as “sham” acupuncture, can themselves be therapeutic. The implication of this is that it is highly probable most studies have skewed results that over or under-state the effects of true acupuncture. The production of high quality, scientifically rigorous acupuncture studies is a specific interest of mine because these studies inform the public, the medical community and policy makers about the medicine that I practice. It is concerning to me that poor studies, either due to known or previously misunderstood flaws, will effect perception and further research and use of acupuncture. The study can be found Here.
Additional interesting research illuminates possible effects acupuncture has on the brain. These articles, Here and Here, conclude that acupuncture has an effect on functional complexes in the brain which help modulate pain, anxiety, reward seeking behavior and memory. Studies also show that the different points used create different effect patterns.
A fascinating study, found Here, introduces the concept of expectation as a variable in research. The authors looked into the effect of a positive or diminished positive expectation on the sensation and measurements of pain in 48 subjects. They surmise that acupuncture stimulation inhibits pain via physiological pathways while positive expectation further inhibits pain via emotional pathways; and that the fact that this effect exists must be taken into account in future studies as a variable.
Another interesting article from Germany, Here, shows that acupuncture at the the point GB 43 has no specific effect on the gyrus of Heschl, the auditory area of the brain. I found it interesting that they did not test other points that are said to have a more specific action on the ears, such as GB 2, SJ 17, SI 19 or SJ 21, as it is not a claim of the point GB 43 to be able to specifically effect auditory capabilities.
A similar article, Here, from Massachusetts General Hospital found that fMRI signal changes were not specific to the occipital region of the brain when stimulating acupoints UB 60, GB 37 (both used for eye pathologies) and a nearby non-acupoint. They concluded that “Given the complexity of acupuncture systems and brain activity, additional work is required to determine whether functional neuroanatomical correlates of acupoint specificity can be validated by means of brain imaging tools.” This brings up an interesting point: should we expect the area of the brain related to vision to show signal changes when we stimulate acupoints that effect the eye? As practitioners we do not assume that these points literally clear vision in a measurable way. We use these points because they influence the body as a whole to effect pathology occurring in the eyes. This includes pathologies ranging from problems with the eyelids, infections, eye muscle control, or diseases of specific structures of the eye. Many of these pathologies would not correspond with fMRI signal changes in the visual cortex of the brain associated with vision.
This article out of New York compared true acupuncture stimulation at the point LI 2 with sham acupuncture. The researchers found that “Neuroimaging signal changes appear correlated to saliva production” in the true acupuncture stimulation, as well as an actual increase in saliva, one of the point’s intended effects vs. no change with sham acupuncture.
As all of this research indicates, acupuncture’s mechanisms and effects are still mysterious, though perhaps better understood than in previous years. I am hopeful that future research and reviews concerning the nature of acupuncture research itself will continue to improve the quality and reliability of measurable outcomes and promote a more solid understanding of acupuncture’s potentials and limitatations.