You’ll find more study in the West of “dry needling”, a technique directly inspired by acupuncture. Here’s one recent review.
I see an acupuncturist because the results for me are great, she’s good at what she does, she does believe in germ theory, she practices in a sanitary way, and she doesn’t claim to cure illnesses. These are the norms for modern licensed acupuncturists. I’m not saying every acupuncturist out there is like this, hokey grifters do exist in alt medicine spaces, and that’s kind of my whole point. It really depends on the practitioner.
Many of those studies in that meta analysis show limited short term effects.
Because there is no widely accepted sham protocol for DN research, researchers should incorporate cognitive influences that extend beyond the mimicking of tactile sensations to create a believable simulation of active dry needling.
I also think there’s a serious question about what sham/placebo dry needling would be, and if inconsistent standards could impact results.
Several did show some positive short term effects, but it’s no surprise that several don’t. Dry needling isn’t going to cure pain on its own or work for everyone, much like other forms of bodywork. Individual results vary and it needs to be done over a long period of time alongside other work to restore stability and mobility. A supplementary treatment just needs to be low-risk, accessible, and possibly beneficial enough to try. The risks associated with dry needling are less severe than those of several common PT interventions such as corticosteroid injections. To say nothing of the risks associated with chiropractic.
The lack of a standardized placebo is a problem, yes. This study had pretty good results from using a blunted needle glued in an introducer. The patient feels the sensation of the introducer being pressed against skin and “pistoned” in, but the needle doesn’t actually make contact. In the group of people who had not received dry needling before, only one correctly identified that they had received the placebo.
Why would you let someone who doesn’t believe in germ theory put needles in your body?
There is no evidence justifying acupuncture.
You’ll find more study in the West of “dry needling”, a technique directly inspired by acupuncture. Here’s one recent review.
I see an acupuncturist because the results for me are great, she’s good at what she does, she does believe in germ theory, she practices in a sanitary way, and she doesn’t claim to cure illnesses. These are the norms for modern licensed acupuncturists. I’m not saying every acupuncturist out there is like this, hokey grifters do exist in alt medicine spaces, and that’s kind of my whole point. It really depends on the practitioner.
Many of those studies in that meta analysis show limited short term effects.
I also think there’s a serious question about what sham/placebo dry needling would be, and if inconsistent standards could impact results.
Several did show some positive short term effects, but it’s no surprise that several don’t. Dry needling isn’t going to cure pain on its own or work for everyone, much like other forms of bodywork. Individual results vary and it needs to be done over a long period of time alongside other work to restore stability and mobility. A supplementary treatment just needs to be low-risk, accessible, and possibly beneficial enough to try. The risks associated with dry needling are less severe than those of several common PT interventions such as corticosteroid injections. To say nothing of the risks associated with chiropractic.
The lack of a standardized placebo is a problem, yes. This study had pretty good results from using a blunted needle glued in an introducer. The patient feels the sensation of the introducer being pressed against skin and “pistoned” in, but the needle doesn’t actually make contact. In the group of people who had not received dry needling before, only one correctly identified that they had received the placebo.