Skip to main content
. 2010 Jan 20;2010(1):CD003974. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD003974.pub3

Witt 2005.

Methods Design: three group parallel trial 
 Purpose: examine the effect of acupuncture for osteoarthritis of the knee
Participants Patients: patients with symptomatic osteoarthritis of the knee 
 Baseline comparability: yes (WOMAC score)
Interventions Placebo: acupuncture on sites not regarded acupuncture sites 
 Untreated: no acupuncture 
 Experimental: acupuncture on sites regarded acupuncture sites 
 (Co‐intervention: standard medical care. All patients were allowed to take non‐steroid anti‐inflammatory drugs if necessary)
Outcomes WOMAC (Western Ontario and McMaster Universities osteoarthritis) index 
 Disability (Pain disability index) 
 Physical and mental health (SF‐36) 
 Pain (questionnaire for assessing the emotional aspects of pain) 
 Depression (ADS depression scale) 
 Days with limited function 
 Days in pain (patient diary) 
 Days with medication in weeks 5‐8 (patient diary)
Notes Patients in the no‐treatment group took medication on 5.8 days whereas the placebo group did so on 4.6 days (weeks 5 to 8). SE values were provided in the original publication and these values were converted to SD for analysis in the review.
Risk of bias
Bias Authors' judgement Support for judgement
Adequate sequence generation? Low risk ‘random list generated with Samp Size 2.0’
Allocation concealment? Low risk 'centralised telephone randomisation procedure'
Blinding? 
 Treatment provider High risk Not described as double‐blind (placebo/acupuncture)
Blinding? 
 Outcome assessor Unclear risk Not relevant as patient reported outcome
Incomplete outcome data addressed? 
 All outcomes Low risk Drop‐out < 15%
Free of selective reporting? Low risk Primary outcome specified in protocol
Free of other bias? Unclear risk Patients in the no‐treatment group took medication on 5.6 days whereas the placebo group did so on 4.6 days (weeks 5 to 8).
No signs of variance inequality or skewness? Low risk No variance inequality (F‐test not statistically significant) and no skewness (1.64 standard deviations does not exceed the mean)
Trial size > 49? Low risk N = 140
Clearly concealed allocation + trial size > 49 + drop‐out max 15% Low risk All three categories fulfilled