Table 1.

RCTs comparing acupuncture versus placebo for the treatment of tennis elbow.

Ref	Population	Comparison	Outcome	Endpoint	Results
	45 people	Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture (10 sessions)	Pain reduction from baseline, measured on a 30 mm VAS; baseline range: 16.46–17.17	2 weeks	–8.43 with acupuncture v –4.89 with sham treatment; P less than 0.05
			Functional impairment reduction from baseline, measured on the DASH scale from 1–100; baseline range: 33.72–38.08	2 weeks	–23.70 with acupuncture v –8.54 with sham treatment; P less than 0.05
	48 people with chronic unilateral tennis elbow pain for over 2 months, average 15.4 months	Needle acupuncture v sham acupuncture (needles not inserted)	Pain relief duration	After one treatment	WMD 18.8 hours, 95% CI 10.1 to 27.5 hours
			Proportion of people with at least 50% reduction in pain	After one treatment	19/24 (79%) with acupuncture v 6/24 (25%) with placebo; RR 3.2, 95% CI 1.5 to 6.5
	82 people with lateral epicondyle pain for 1 month or longer	Needle acupuncture v sham acupuncture	Proportion of self-reported “good” or “excellent” results	After 10 sessions	22/44 (50%) with acupuncture v 8/38 (21%) with sham treatment; P less than 0.01
			Proportion of self-reported “good” or “excellent” results	At 3 months	Data reported graphically; reported as NS
			Proportion of self-reported “good” or “excellent” results	At 12 months	Data reported graphically; reported as NS
			Increase in median pain threshold on gripping from baseline (range: 32–33)	After 10 sessions	32 with acupuncture v 10 with sham treatment; P less than 0.05
			Increase in median pain threshold on gripping from baseline (range: 32–33)	At 3 months	47 with acupuncture v 37 with sham treatment; reported as NS
			Increase in median pain threshold on gripping from baseline (range: 32–33)	At 12 months	62 with acupuncture v 55 with sham treatment; reported as NS
	49 people with lateral elbow pain from 1 month to 3 years	Laser acupuncture v sham treatment	Proportion of people reporting "no improvement" or "worse" outcome	After 10 sessions	6/23 (26%) with laser v 5/26 (19%) with sham treatment; reported as NS; RR 1.36, 95% CI 0.48 to 3.86
			Proportion of people reporting "no improvement" or "worse" outcome	At 3 months	2/22 (9%) with laser v 6/25 (24%) with sham treatment; reported as NS; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.09 to 1.69
			Proportion of people reporting "no improvement" or "worse" outcome	At 12 months	1/18 (6%) v 0/21 (0%) with sham treatment; reported as NS; RR 3.47, 95% CI 0.15 to 80.36
			Proportion of people reporting "excellent" or "good" outcome	After 10 sessions	5/23 (22%) with laser v 12/26 (46%) with sham treatment; reported as NS
			Proportion of people reporting "excellent" or "good" outcome	At 3 months	12/22 (55%) with laser v 13/25 (52%) with sham treatment; reported as NS
			Proportion of people reporting "excellent" or "good" outcome	At 12 months	14/18 (78%) v 14/21 (67%) with sham treatment; reported as NS
	30 people	Acupuncture plus vitamin B12 injection v vitamin B12 injection alone	Cure ("cure" not defined)	After 6 months	RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.15 to 1.29

DASH, Disabilities of the Arm, Shoulder, and Hand; Ref, Reference; NS, not significant; VAS, visual analogue scale