So 92% of 255 is 235 (rounded up)... that means that 68.5% of acupuncture points don't correspond to anything... WOW!! THAT'S AMAZING!!!

Also, if you're looking at points which are within 2cm of each other... 747 points with a 2cm range gives a total area of 1.8 square meters, I think (only did the calc. quickly)? That is right in what google tells me is the average skin area for an adult human (1.5 - 2). So it's hardly surprising they found matches??...to find trigger (255) and acupuncture points (747) that are within 2 cm of each other...

So the 747 acupuncture points and 255 trigger points compared showed 92% correspondance, or 235 trigger points.

So that's 235*12.56636sq cm = 2953.0946sq cm= 0.29530946sq m
(corresponding trig pts)*(pie*2cm^2)
At 1.5m^2 to 2.0m^2 of average skin surface area we are talking about all of those points falling along myofascial lines that represented 14.8% to 19.7% of the total surface area of the skin. That is pretty damned cool if you ask me.

Of the 747 acupuncture points, 76% (or 568) shared complete or near complete agreement in the distribution of myofascial referred pain patterns. The remaining 14% had at least some agreement.

Interesting that these numbers were generated out of perceived nonsense, or maybe, they twigged on to something a couple thousand years before Europeans "discovered" it.

The 76% figure is taken from the 255 points though, NOT the 747 acunpuncture points. At least that is what the abstract you posted seems to suggest. That means the 68.5% figure I have shown stands.

I got the area wrong, should have double checked my calcs! You are wrong as well, though...

You have only used the points which matched for some reason. Remember, they were comparing 255 points with 747, so the total area for potential hits was 747 x 12.57 sq cm = 0.939 sq m. Even taking the 2 sq m measure for human skin surface that covers almost 50%.

I really don't see anything in those results. It would be interesting if a statistician could tell us what the significance of the results is. I suspect quite low.

RobT, I reread the abstract and I do think you are right regarding the math on the surface area. Ironically, I think we are both wrong about what the percentages for the acupuncture points actually represents.

They reported 92% of the trigger points corresponded. They didn't actually tell us how many acupuncture points that included. "...Of these acupuncture points, 79.5% had regional pain indications similar to their corresponding trigger points..."

"Of these acupuncture points" isn't really specific. Is that of the total 747, or is that of the acupuncture points to that corresponded?

"Complete or near-complete agreement in the distributions of the myofascial referred-pain patterns and acupuncture meridians were found for 76% of corresponding points; at least some agreement was found for another 14%." So how many of the acupuncture points actual corresponded to begin with? I think it would be more clear if I could have found the full report. I'm not going to say this study, as a whole, is a bad reference, but I will sure as hell admit that I jumped the gun just using the abstract.

Addressing further the second part of my post, acupuncture having a physiological effects, here is some prelimenary data suggesting that acupuncture does indeed effect the activity in the brain.
_______________________________________
Expectancy and belief modulate the neuronal substrates of pain treated by acupuncture


Jérémie Pariente, Peter Whiteb (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4FKYDTN-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e1360982cad7ef32e9d81049b7a47ceb#aff2), Richard S.J. Frackowiaka (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4FKYDTN-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e1360982cad7ef32e9d81049b7a47ceb#aff1) and George Lewithb (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WNP-4FKYDTN-8&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=e1360982cad7ef32e9d81049b7a47ceb#aff2)
aWellcome Department of Imaging Neuroscience, 12 Queen Square, WC1N 3BG London, UK
bComplementary Medicine Research Unit, Aldermoor Health Centre, Aldermoor Close, SO16 5ST Southampton, UK
Received 16 August 2004; revised 9 January 2005; accepted 11 January 2005. Available online 2 March 2005.


Abstract

Both specific and non-specific factors may play a role in acupuncture therapy for pain. We explored the cerebral consequences of needling and expectation with real acupuncture, placebo acupuncture and skin-prick, using a single-blind, randomized crossover design with 14 patients suffering from painful osteoarthritis, who were scanned with positron emission tomography (PET). The three interventions, all of which were sub-optimal acupuncture treatment, did not modify the patient's pain. The insula ipsilateral to the site of needling was activated to a greater extent during real acupuncture than during the placebo intervention. Real acupuncture and placebo (with the same expectation of effect as real acupuncture) caused greater activation than skin prick (no expectation of a therapeutic effect) in the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, and midbrain. These results suggest that real acupuncture has a specific physiological effect and that patients' expectation and belief regarding a potentially beneficial treatment modulate activity in component areas of the reward system.
_________________________________________

Neural activities in human somatosensory cortical areas evoked by acupuncture stimulation.

Yoo SS, Kerr CE, Park M, Im DM, Blinder RA, Park H, Kaptchuk TJ.
Department of Radiology, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA 02115, United States. yoo@bwh.harvard.edu


OBJECTIVES: To investigate neural representation evoked by acupuncture from human somatosensory cortices, especially from primary (SI) and secondary (SII) somatosensory areas. DESIGN AND SETTING: Neuroimaging study - Blood-oxygenation-level-dependent (BOLD) functional MRI was performed during acupuncture on LI4 (n=12 healthy participants). Sham acupuncture and innocuous tactile stimulation were also applied on the same acupuncture site as control comparisons. OUTCOME MEASURES: Responsive neural substrates were visualized and identified based on both individual and group-level surface activation maps. RESULTS: Discrete regions within the precentral gyrus (area 4) and the fundus of the central sulcus (area 3a) were selectively activated during the real acupuncture stimulation. In SII, the activation was extended in a postero-inferior direction to the fundus of the lateral sulcus. CONCLUSION: This specific pattern of acupuncture-related activation indicates that deep tissue stimulation (as seen in area 3a activation) and concurrent processing of sensory stimulation (as seen in activation in SII) may mediate neural responses to manual acupuncture.
PMID: 18054726 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
____________________________________________

I would say that "Of the 255 trigger points, 92% had anatomically corresponding acupuncture points" means they looked at the 255 points and 92% of them had corresponding (within 2cm) points within the 747 acu points. As I have shown, this is not very impressive at all.

They then go on to say "Of these acupuncture points, 79.5% had regional pain indications similar to their corresponding trigger points." - this now takes the matching points down to 187 points out of 747 = 25%, very unimpressive.


The next bit; "Complete or near-complete agreement in the distributions of the myofascial referred-pain patterns and acupuncture meridians were found for 76% of corresponding points; at least some agreement was found for another 14%." - well, I have no idea what they are talking about now, the numbers are still very low though.



As for the fact that sticking pins in people has a physiological effect, I don't think many people would be surprised to discover this. It's whether it has the claimed effect which is important, and that is what no study has ever managed to show.

I would say that "Of the 255 trigger points, 92% had anatomically corresponding acupuncture points" means they looked at the 255 points and 92% of them had corresponding (within 2cm) points within the 747 acu points. As I have shown, this is not very impressive at all.

They then go on to say "Of these acupuncture points, 79.5% had regional pain indications similar to their corresponding trigger points." - this now takes the matching points down to 187 points out of 747 = 25%, very unimpressive. This is running under the assumption that there is only a 1 to 1 correspondance. The fact is that within 12.57 sq cm there can be more than 1 acupuncture point. We actually do not know how many acupuncture points correspond to the trigger point and its defined region. That is where I say we were in error.


As for the fact that sticking pins in people has a physiological effect, I don't think many people would be surprised to discover this. It's whether it has the claimed effect which is important, and that is what no study has ever managed to show.I would disagree. There are preliminary studies that show therapuetic effect, which is what I posted back a page or two. It shows promise for larger, more complete studies.

If more than one acupuncture point is being matched to the same trigger point, I would say that makes the results worse. That would kind of indicate inaccuracy on the part of the acu points, no?

2cm certainly seems to be a big range of error to me. Imagine having surgery done under those margins... no thanks!!

You are right about prelim studies, but that doesn't change what I said. No study have ever shown the claimed effects (maybe I should have added "to a level considered statistically important").

Anyway, this isn't going to go anywhere from here unless a good study is done. It has been nice to discuss it without anyone having a tantrum, for once! :)

It has been nice to discuss it without anyone having a tantrum, for once! :)Likewise.

So while I'll retract my "cases cited" remark, there are certainly vets out there who claim to have success with it. As to why (does an owner experiencing placebo effect change the physiology of a dog with arthritis?), I'm not certain yet.

What turns out a bigger profit margin, buy and using expensive anesthetics or just needling an animal and tricking the owner into thinking that it didn't suffer?

When I was getting acupunture there were women coming in and calling in to the clinic all the time thanking the boss there for helping them have a child. The only thing is that the women were taking chinese herbs alongside acupunture

People have survived for thousands of years with home made remodys for illness that they have come to know either through intuition or trial and error, some work some dont, some are down to earth and some are a little out there, many modern drugs were found based on these types or remodys, now im not sure about acupunture, even though I do get it (my insurance covers it so I get my money back) but Chinese herbs, there is definately something there

Science has to be open minded along with being skeptical. If a positive study comes out, we should read and evaluate it, not just disagree as a knee jerk response because it disagrees with current dogma.

I haven't read this study yet, and I suspect few of us on this thread have. But remember that the scientific community changes its idea of the truth constantly as new research is done.

I don't believe in chi meridians, or chi at all for that matter, but that doesn't mean that there is not some other mechanism by which acupuncture might have an effect. Read the study (I will) and if you have criticism, post it. But just bashing acupuncture mindlessly is as useless supporting it mindlessly.

At the same time, forget this "my aunt's friend's goiter was cured by it" and "we don't need science since it's been proven by 20000 years of Chinese medicine" nonsense. If it works, it's measurable and provable.

Science has to be open minded along with being skeptical. If a positive study comes out, we should read and evaluate it, not just disagree as a knee jerk response because it disagrees with current dogma.

Read the study (I will) and if you have criticism, post it. But just bashing acupuncture mindlessly is as useless supporting it mindlessly.


No-one had a knee-jerk reaction.

The study (meta-analysis) is crap, I've already linked to it in this thread. The trials they used were on the whole badly flawed (i.e. no controls, no placebos, only single-blind etc) and those which weren't showed the poorest outcomes for acupuncture.

When I was getting acupunture there were women coming in and calling in to the clinic all the time thanking the boss there for helping them have a child. The only thing is that the women were taking chinese herbs alongside acupunture

People have survived for thousands of years with home made remodys for illness that they have come to know either through intuition or trial and error, some work some dont, some are down to earth and some are a little out there, many modern drugs were found based on these types or remodys, now im not sure about acupunture, even though I do get it (my insurance covers it so I get my money back) but Chinese herbs, there is definately something there

LOL, it must work then!

Here is a link to what is being toted as the "best large study to date" on acupuncture and back pain: German Acupuncture Trials (GERAC) for Chronic Low Back Pain (http://cfm.mc.duke.edu/wysiwyg/downloads/Haake_GERAC_for_chronic_low_back_pain_%282007%29_1 892_1898.pdf)

This PDF contains a detailed account of the study, more so than just the abstracts.

What is of interest is that even though Acupuncture and "sham" Acupuncture had similar response rates, 47.6% and 44.2% respectively, they both outperformed "standard" non-surgical care which had only a 27.4% response rate.



Of note - The "sham" method used in this study has been called into question by acupuncturists because while they needled non-indicated points for back pain with very shallow insertion, there was still actual needle penetration. Some styles of acupuncture, Japanese styles in particular do not rely on deep penetration, nor do all methods call for needle insertion directly in the effected area. Whether this is an effective sham method or not, acupuncture still outperformed current standard care.

The problem with these trials is always with the blinding unfortunately. I'm not really sure whether there is a way around this.

People know for sure if they are not having acunpuncture ("real" or sham) and so may be less inclined to feel their pain has decreased. Also, the people applying the treatment know whether it's real or sham and so may well influence the results.

I tend to distrust "meta-analysis" as they are usually scientists trying to skew results to their preconceived bias.

See the media sensationalized "Vitamins will kill you" news article that's been recently flaunted about.

Rob, if you read the study particulars you find that the patients were blinded in this study due to the fact that both acupuncture groups did get a needle inserted. The "sham" group received needles at what the researchers determined to be non-therapeutic insertion depths on non specific locations (ie- areas where classical acu-points are not listed).

I will agree that it is next to impossible to blind the people administering the acupuncture, however, there is work being done on a "sham" needle that hides the needle from the administering person and still gives a penetrating sensation to the receiver of the acupuncture. It's pretty interesting. Single blinded studies can still give us viable data though, and they are accepted in many areas of research where double blinding is difficult to achieve.

Variance, this last study I posted is not a meta-analysis.