. 2013 Feb 17;2013:364216. doi: 10.1155/2013/364216

Table 1.

A summary of the randomized controlled trials of acupuncture for spinal cord injury.

First author (ref) (year) Country	Study design	Patient population Type of SCI Target state Duration of SCI (mean (range))	Experimental treatment (regimen)	Control treatment (regimen)	Main outcomes	Intergroup differences Experimental versus control
Functional recovery
Chen [3] (1995), China	Parallel 2 arms	67 n.r. Lower extremity spasticity (A) 11.3 ± 10.0 (1–53) mo (B) 15.5 ± 16.7 (1–81) mo	(A) EA, (n = 32)	(B) Rehabilitation, (n = 35)	Total efficacy rate (Ashworth scale)	RR; P = 0.05, 1.86 (1.00, 3.45)
Wong [4] (2003), Taiwan	Parallel 2 arms Assessor blind	100 Traumatic SCI Complete motor paralysis n.r.	(A) EA + AA, plus (B), (n = 50)	(B) Rehabilitation, (n = 50)	(1) ASIA score (1) Motor (2) Sensory (3) Pain (2) Total FIM score	(1) (1) MD, P = 0.003, 0.61 (0.21, 1.01) (2) MD, P = 0.005, 0.58 (0.18, 0.98) (3) MD, P = 0.009, 0.54 (0.14, 0.94) (2) MD, P = 0.02, 0.49 (0.09, 0.89)
Cui [5] (2004), China	Parallel 2 arms	72 Traumatic SCI n.r. (A) 12.9 ± 5.1 d (B) 13.4 ± 6.2 d	(A) EA, plus (B), (n = 37)	(B) Rehabilitation, (n = 35)	(1) FIM score (complete independent rate) (1) 3 sessions (2) 6 sessions	(1) (1) RR, P = 0.36, 2.84 (0.31, 26.01) (2) RR, P = 0.34, 1.89 (0.51, 6.99)
Xu [6] (2004), China	Parallel 2 arms	62 Traumatic SCI n.r. n.r.	(A) EA, plus (B), (n = 32)	(B) Rehabilitation, (n = 30)	Total FIM score	MD, P = 0.08, 0.44 (−0.06, 0.95)
Chen [7] (2005), China	Parallel 2 arms	56 Nontraumatic SCI Acute SCI n.r.	(A) EA + AA, plus (B), (n = 28)	(B) Rehabilitation, (n = 28)	(1) ASIA score (1) Motor (2) Sensory (3) Pain (2) FIM score (locomotion ability)	(1) (1) MD, P = 0.0003, 1.05 (0.48, 1.61) (2) MD, P < 0.00001, 1.91 (1.27, 2.55) (3) MD, P < 0.00001, 1.85 (1.22, 2.48) (2) MD, P < 0.00001, 2.13 (1.46, 2.79)*
Gu [8] (2005)a, China	Parallel 2 arms	62 Traumatic SCI n.r. (A) 30.3 ± 17.6 d (B) 28.8 ± 11.7 d	(A) EA, plus (B), (n = 32)	(B) Rehabilitation + neurotropic oral drugs, (n = 30)	(1) Total FIM score (2) Rehabilitation effectiveness (= (FIM discharge − FIM admission)/hospitalization day)	(1) MD, P = 0.08, 0.44 (−0.06, 0.95) (2) MD, P = 0.05, 0.51 (0.01, 1.02)
Ma [9] (2005), China	Parallel 2 arms Assessor blind	30 n.r. SCI (walking function) n.r.	(A) EA + AT, plus (B), (n = 15)	(B) Rehabilitation, (n = 15)	(1) Fugl-Meyer's score (2) Lindmark's score	(1) MD, P = 0.008, 1.04 (0.27, 1.81) (2) MD, P < 0.00001, 8.55 (6.12, 10.98)
Sheng [10] (2009), China	Parallel 2 arms	48 Traumatic SCI n.r. n.r.	(A) EA, plus (B), (n = 24)	(B) IV (BPH 120 mg + 0.9% NaCl 250 mL, daily for 3 months), (n = 24)	(1) Total efficacy rate	(1) RR, P = 0.003, 2.10 (1.28, 3.45)

Bladder dysfunction
Huang [11] (2002), China	Parallel 2 arms	64 n.r. Urinary retention (A) 11.0 (5–20) d (B) 10.5 (5–20) d	(A) EA, (n = 32)	(B) IM (Neostigmine methylsulfate, (1 mg/2 mL), 2 hours after catheter removal) + IC + BT (n = 32)	Total efficacy rate	RR, P = 0.02, 1.50 (1.07, 2.11)
Zhang [12] (2008), China	Parallel 2 arms	89 n.r. Neurogenic bladder (A) 2~3 m (B) n.r.	(A) EA, (n = 45)	(B) IM (Neostigmine 0.5~1 mg, once a day) + IC + BT, (n = 44)	Total efficacy rate	RR, P = 0.11, 1.12 (0.95, 1.32)
Zhou [13] (2007), China	Parallel 2 arms	111 Traumatic SCI Neurogenic bladder (A) 45.62 ± 6.23 d (B) 43.76 ± 8.23 d	(A) EA (n = 56)	(B) IC + BT, (n = 55)	(1) Total efficacy rate (2) Residual urine (mL)	(1) RR, P = 0.006, 1.47 (1.12, 1.94) (2) MD, P < 0.00001, −1.16 (−1.56, −0.76)
Cheng [14] (1998), Taiwan	Parallel 4 arms	80^† n.r. Neurogenic bladder (A) 23.7 ± 12.8 d (B) 26.1 ± 12.1 d	(A) EA, plus (B) (1) above T11 (n = 18) (2) below T11 (n = 14)	(B) IC + BT, (1) above T11 (n = 16) (2) below T11 (n = 12)	Total days needed to reach bladder balance (1) Above T11 (2) Below T11	(1) MD, P = 0.003, 1.10 (0.37, 1.83) (2) MD, P = 0.009, 1.12 (0.28, 1.96)
Gu [15] (2005)b, China	Parallel 2 arms	64 mixed Bladder dysfunction n.r.	(A) EA, plus (B), (n = 32)	(B) IC, (n = 32)	Total efficacy rate	RR, P = 0.007, 1.53 (1.12, 2.08)
Liu [16] (2009), China	Parallel 2 arms	40 n.r. Bladder dysfunction 14 days~90 d	(A) EA, plus (B), (n = 20)	(B) IC + BT, (n = 20)	Bladder voiding function parameters (1) Frequency of urination (times) (2) Maximum voided volume (mL) (3) Bladder capacity (mL) (4) Residual urine (mL) (5) Quality of life score	(1) MD, P = 0.012, −0.49 (−1.12, 0.14) (2) MD, P = 0.024, 0.37 (−0.25, 1.00) (3) MD, P = 0.06, 0.61 (−0.02, 1.25) (4) MD, P = 0.32, −0.32 (−0.94, 0.31) (5) MD, P = 0.30, −0.33 (−0.96, 0.29)

Pain condition
Dyson-Hudson [17] (2007), USA	Parallel 2 arms Patient blind Assessor blind	17 n.r. Chronic shoulder pain (A) 9.3 ± 10.5 y (B) 13.1 ± 7.7 y	(A) AT, (n = 8)	(B) Sham AT, (n = 9)	(1) PC-WUSPI (2) NRS (11 points scale, shoulder pain)	(1) MD, P = 0.19, −0.65 (−1.64, 0.33) (2) MD, P = 0.19, −0.67 (−1.69, 0.34)
Dyson-Hudson [18] (2001), USA	Parallel 2 arms	18 n.r. Chronic SCI and shoulder pain (A) 16.2 ± 9.7 y (B) 13.4 ± 6.2 y	(A) AT, (n = 9)	(B) Trager Approach, (n = 9)	(1) PC-WUSPI (2) NRS (10 points VAS, shoulder pain) (3) VRS (shoulder pain)	(1) MD, P = 0.91, −0.05 (−0.98, 0.87) (2) No significant difference (P > 0.05)^‡ (3) RR, P = 0.46, 0.89 (0.67, 1.20)

AA: auricular acupuncture; ASIA score: American spinal injury association neurologic and functional score; AT: acupuncture; BPH: brain protein hydrolysate; BT: bladder training; EA: electrical AT; FIM score: functional independence measure score; IC: intermittent catheterization; IM: intramuscular; IV: intravenous; n.r.: not reported; NRS: numeric rating scale; PC-WUSPI score: performance-corrected wheelchair user's shoulder pain index score; SCI: spinal cord injury; VAS: visual analog scale; VRS: verbal response score.

*The author did not report total FIM score but did each of 6 domains.

^†80 patients were randomized, but 60 were analyzed.

^‡Each group had a significant effect after therapy (P < 0.01).