Send to

Choose Destination
J Altern Complement Med. 2006 Sep;12(7):649-57.

Interventions and physician characteristics in a randomized multicenter trial of acupuncture in patients with low-back pain.

Author information

Institute of Social Medicine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, Berlin, Germany.



Descriptions of the interventions used in acupuncture studies are often incomplete. The aim of this paper is to describe participating trial physicians and interventions in a randomised trial of acupuncture for low back pain.


Three-armed, randomized, controlled multicenter trial with 1-year follow-up. A total of 301 patients with low-back pain were randomized to 12 sessions of semistandardized acupuncture (at least six local and two distant points needled bilaterally from a selection of predefined points, but individual choice of additional body or ear acupuncture points possible), minimal acupuncture (superficial needling of at least 6 of 10 predefined, bilateral, distant nonacupuncture points), or a waiting list control (2 months no acupuncture followed by semistandardised acupuncture described above).


Participating trial physicians and interventions.


Forty-five (45) physicians specializing in acupuncture (mean age 44 +/- 7.8 years, 23 (51%) female) in 30 outpatient centers in Germany provided the interventions. The median duration of acupuncture training of trial physicians was 350 hours (range 140-2508). The most frequently reported Chinese diagnosis was Kidney deficiency (39%), followed by qi and Blood stagnation (24%), and bi syndrome (20%). The total number of needles used was 17.3 +/- 4.2 in the acupuncture group compared to 12.3 +/- 1.2 in the minimal acupuncture group. In total, 40 physicians (89%) stated that they would have treated patients similarly or in exactly the same way outside of the trial, whereas 5 (11%) stated that they would have treated patients differently.


For most trial physicians, the semistandardized acupuncture strategy used in this trial was an acceptable compromise for an efficacy study. However, a relevant minority of participating trial physicians stated that they would have treated patients differently outside of the trial.

[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Atypon
Loading ...
Support Center