↓ Skip to main content

Comparison of the placebo effect between different non-penetrating acupuncture devices and real acupuncture in healthy subjects: a randomized clinical trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (53rd percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (64th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
3 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Comparison of the placebo effect between different non-penetrating acupuncture devices and real acupuncture in healthy subjects: a randomized clinical trial
Published in
BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine, December 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12906-016-1477-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leonardo Yung dos Santos Maciel, Paula Michele dos Santos Leite, Mauricio Lima Poderoso Neto, Andreza Carvalho Rabelo Mendonça, Carla Carolina Alves de Araujo, Jersica da Hora Santos Souza, Josimari Melo DeSantana

Abstract

Several studies have used placebo acupuncture methods in recent years as a way for blinding therapeutic effect of acupuncture, however placebo method selection has not followed enough methodological criteria to the point of stabilishing a consensus of what should be the best method to be used. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of three different placebo acupuncture methods for blinding applied in healthy subjects. This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the Federal University of Sergipe with the number 47193015.5.0000.5546 and all individuals participating in the study signed a free and informed consent. For this study, 321 healthy volunteers were randomly divided into seven groups using the abdominal point stomach (ST) 25 and seven groups using the lumbar point bladder (Bl) 52 for stimulation. For real acupuncture procedure, three different methods of placebo acupuncture plus a mix between real acupuncture and placebo applied in the same individual, totaling fourteen groups in this study. Outcome assessments were performed before and immediately after applying the technique. Investigator who assessed variables had no knowledgement about the method was applied. Identification, weight and height were measured before puncture by using. At the end, subjects were asked if they believed they were receiving real or placebo acupuncture. There was no significant difference between groups for the perception about the type o stimulation (wheter real or placebo puncture). Percentage of subjects who reported to have received real acupuncture in the abdominal point was 69.56% in real group, 86.95% in group Park Sham, 82.60% in needle + foam, 91.30% in insertion and removal, 78.26% in real + Park Sham, 86.36% in real + needle and foam, 86.95% in real + insertion and removal, and for the lumbar point was 86.36% in real group, 86.95% in group Park Sham, 69.56% in needle + foam, 72% in insertion and removal, 86.95% in real + Park Sham, 81.81% in real + needle and foam and 78.26% in real + insertion and removal. All placebo acupuncture methods proposed in this study were equally effective for bliding the study participants using either abdominal or lumbar acupoints, and none of the placebo methods presented benefit compared to the other to be used in future clinical trials. Federal University of Sergipe (UFS), number of approval: 47193015.5.0000.5546 TRIAL REGISTRATION: ensaiosclinicos.gov.br RBR-3w2p32 Registered in 28th January 2016.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 6 20%
Student > Bachelor 5 17%
Student > Master 4 13%
Unspecified 3 10%
Researcher 3 10%
Other 9 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 40%
Unspecified 6 20%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 17%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 7%
Social Sciences 1 3%
Other 4 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 20 January 2017.
All research outputs
#4,178,857
of 8,937,907 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#940
of 2,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,179
of 305,654 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine
#20
of 59 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 8,937,907 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 52nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.6. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 305,654 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 53% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 59 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 64% of its contemporaries.