Table 7.

Differences in effect size (in SD) between acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups (N=25) and between acupuncture and no acupuncture control groups (N=24). Total number of sham acupuncture-controlled trials sums to 26 because one trial had two different types of sham acupuncture control.

Sham Acupuncture
Type of Control Group	N	Effect Size (95% CI)	p value
Penetrating needle sham	11	0.17 (0.11, 0.22)	<0.0001
Excluding B blinding grades	9	0.16 (0.09, 0.24)	<0.0001
Non-penetrating needle and non-needle sham	15	0.48 (0.22, 0.74)	0.0003
Excluding B blinding grades	11	0.51 (0.16, 0.86)	0.004
Including Hinman trial	16	0.46 (0.21, 0.70)	0.0003
Excluding Vas trials	12	0.27 (0.10, 0.44)	0.002
Non-penetrating needle sham	10	0.52 (0.14, 0.91)	0.007
Excluding Vas trials	7	0.22 (−0.05, 0.49)	0.11
Non-needle sham	5	0.37 (0.21, 0.52)	<0.0001
Including Hinman trial	6	0.32 (0.18, 0.46)	<0.0001
True acupuncture points (no penetrating needle sham)	12	0.48 (0.15, 0.80)	0.004
Excluding B blinding grades	10	0.51 (0.12, 0.89)	0.010
Including Hinman trial	13	0.45 (0.15, 0.75)	0.003
Excluding Vas trials	10	0.25 (0.06, 0.44)	0.011
Non-acupuncture points (no penetrating needle sham)	3	0.52 (0.35, 0.69)	<0.0001
Excluding Vas trials	2	0.47 (0.13, 0.81)	0.007
No Acupuncture Control
Type of Control Group	N	Effect Size (95% CI)	p value
High intensity	5	0.34 (0.11, 0.57)	0.003
Usual care and low intensity	19	0.56 (0.43, 0.69)	<0.0001
Usual care	17	0.50 (0.40, 0.60)	<0.0001
Low intensity	2	1.14 (0.71, 1.58)	<0.0001