Most controlled trials of acupuncture have used minimal, superficial, sham, or ‘placebo’ acupuncture. It has recently been demonstrated that light touch of the skin stimulates mechanoreceptors coupled to slow conducting unmyelinated (C) afferents resulting in activity in the insular region, but not in the somatosensory cortex. Activity in these C tactile afferents has been suggested to induce a ‘limbic touch’ response resulting in emotional and hormonal reactions. It is likely that, in many acupuncture studies, control procedures that are meant to be inert are in fact activating these C tactile afferents and consequently result in the alleviation of the affective component of pain. This could explain why control interventions are equally effective as acupuncture in alleviating pain conditions that are predominantly associated with affective components such as migraine or low back pain, but not those with a more pronounced sensory component, such as osteoarthritis of the knee or lateral epicondylalgia.

Placebo-control of acupuncture is used to evaluate and distinguish between the specific effects and the non-specific ones. During 'true' acupuncture treatment in general, the needles are inserted into acupoints and stimulated until deqi is evoked. In contrast, during placebo acupuncture, the needles are inserted into non-acupoints and/or superficially (so-called minimal acupuncture). A sham acupuncture needle with a blunt tip may be used in placebo acupuncture. Both minimal acupuncture and the placebo acupuncture with the sham acupuncture needle touching the skin would evoke activity in cutaneous afferent nerves. This afferent nerve activity has pronounced effects on the functional connectivity in the brain resulting in a 'limbic touch response'. Clinical studies showed that both acupuncture and minimal acupuncture procedures induced significant alleviation of migraine and that both procedures were equally effective. In other conditions such as low back pain and knee osteoarthritis, acupuncture was found to be more potent than minimal acupuncture and conventional non-acupuncture treatment. It is probable that the responses to 'true' acupuncture and minimal acupuncture are dependent on the aetiology of the pain. Furthermore, patients and healthy individuals may have different responses. In this paper, we argue that minimal acupuncture is not valid as an inert placebo-control despite its conceptual brilliance.

Background: Rating scales like the visual analogue scale, VAS, and the verbal rating scale, VRS, are often used for pain assessments both in clinical work and in research, despite the lack of a gold standard. Interchangeability of recorded pain intensity captured in the two scales has been discussed earlier, but not in conjunction with taking the influence of pain etiology into consideration.

Randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are recommended for evaluation of a treatment's efficacy with the goal of separating the specific effects (verum) from the non-specific ones (placebo). In order to be able to carry out placebo-controlled acupuncture trials, minimal/sham acupuncture procedures and a sham acupuncture needle has been used with the intention of being inert. However, clinical and experimental results suggest that sham/minimal acupuncture is not inert since it is reported that both verum acupuncture and sham/minimal acupuncture induce a significant alleviation of pain. This alleviation is as pronounced as the alleviation obtained with standard treatment and more obvious than the one obtained with placebo medication or by the use of waiting list controls. These results also suggest that sham acupuncture needles evoke a physiological response. In healthy individuals sham acupuncture results in activation of limbic structures, whereas a deactivation is seen in patients with pain, i.e. results from healthy individuals do not reflect what is seen in clinical conditions. Also, depending on the etiology of pain (or any under clinical condition under investigation), the response to sham acupuncture is varying. The acupuncture ritual may also be seen as an emotional focused therapy allowing for psychological re-orientation. Sham needling in such context may be as powerful as verum acupuncture. We recommend that the evaluated effects of acupuncture could be compared with those of standard treatment, also taking the individual response into consideration, before its use or non-use is established.

During the last five years a large number of randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) have been published on the efficacy of acupuncture in different conditions. In most of these studies verum is compared with sham acupuncture. In general both verum and sham have been found to be effective, and often with little reported difference in outcome. This has repeatedly led to the conclusion that acupuncture is no more effective than placebo treatment. However, this conclusion is based on the assumption that sham acupuncture is inert. Since sham acupuncture evidently is merely another form of acupuncture from the physiological perspective, the assumption that sham is sham is incorrect and conclusions based on this assumption are therefore invalid. Clinical guidelines based on such conclusions may therefore exclude suffering patients from valuable treatments.