Acupuncture for pain relief during induced labour in nulliparae: a randomised controlled study

MacKenzie, I.Z.; Xu, Jin; Cusick, Chris; Midwinter-Morten, H; Meacher, H; Mollison, Jill; Brock, Melissa

doi:10.1111/j.1471-0528.2010.02825.x

Cited by 28 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[53][54][55][56][57][58][59][60][61][62][63][64][65][66][67][68][69] Next, trials that used EA adjunctively to MA (designated as MA versus MA + EA) were differentiated from trials that directly compared the two procedures (MA versus EA). If all procedures in the EA group before electrostimulation were the same as procedures in the MA group (e.g., de qi was initially elicited in each group), the trial was considered MA versus MA + EA; if the pre-electrostimulation procedure in the EA group was different (e.g., if de qi was elicited only in the MA group), the trial was considered MA versus EA.…”

Section: Clinical Trials Comparing Ma and Eamentioning

confidence: 99%

Manual and Electrical Needle Stimulation in Acupuncture Research: Pitfalls and Challenges of Heterogeneity

Langevin

Schnyer

MacPherson

et al. 2015

The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the field of acupuncture research there is an implicit yet unexplored assumption that the evidence on manual and electrical stimulation techniques, derived from basic science studies, clinical trials, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses, is generally interchangeable. Such interchangeability would justify a bidirectional approach to acupuncture research, where basic science studies and clinical trials each inform the other. This article examines the validity of this fundamental assumption by critically reviewing the literature and comparing manual to electrical acupuncture in basic science studies, clinical trials, and meta-analyses. The evidence from this study does not support the assumption that these techniques are interchangeable. This article also identifies endemic methodologic limitations that have impaired progress in the field. For example, basic science studies have not matched the frequency and duration of manual needle stimulation to the frequency and duration of electrical stimulation. Further, most clinical trials purporting to compare the two types of stimulation have instead tested electroacupuncture as an adjunct to manual acupuncture. The current findings reveal fundamental gaps in the understanding of the mechanisms and relative effectiveness of manual versus electrical acupuncture. Finally, future research directions are suggested to better differentiate electrical from manual simulation, and implications for clinical practice are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Clinical Trials Comparing Ma and Eamentioning

confidence: 99%

Manual and Electrical Needle Stimulation in Acupuncture Research: Pitfalls and Challenges of Heterogeneity

Langevin

Schnyer

MacPherson

et al. 2015

The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Electroacupuncture uses a mild electric current sent though needles inserted into acupuncture points and is especially good for the treatment of chronic pain conditions. 19 MacKenzie et al conducted a single-blind RCT, 23 in which 105 laboring women were randomized into 4 groups: 1) a manual acupuncture group; 2) an electroacupuncture group (points used in both groups were LI4, SP6, BL60, and BL67); 3) a sham group that either received manual acupuncture or electroacupuncture (needles inserted shallowly next to LI4, SP6, BL60, and BL67; and for the sham electroacupuncture group, needles were attached to an electric stimulation device that was not turned on); and 4) a usual care control group. Each group received one treatment of 30 minutes' duration.…”

Section: Acupuncture For Reduction Of Labor Painmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acupuncture and Acupressure in Labor

Schlaeger¹,

Gabzdyl²,

Bussell³

et al. 2016

J Midwife Womens Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Acupuncture and acupressure, 2 modalities of Traditional Chinese Medicine, are based on reducing pain and symptoms of disease through balancing yin and yang. Acupuncture and acupressure have been used in China for reduction of labor pain, labor augmentation, and other intrapartum indications for more than 2 millennia. This article presents a review of the current literature that has addressed the effects of acupuncture and acupressure on intrapartum events. Studies of acupuncture have demonstrated that acupuncture may reduce labor pain, the use of pharmacologic agents, the use of forceps and vacuum-assisted births, and the length of labor. Studies that examined the effect of acupuncture on labor that is induced or augmented for premature rupture of membranes have found that acupuncture may increase the degree of cervical ripening but does not reduce the amount of oxytocin or epidural analgesia administration, nor does it shorten length of induced labor. Acupressure may reduce labor pain and labor duration, but acupressure has not been found to increase cervical ripening or induce labor. There are insufficient studies about acupuncture and acupressure and their effects on labor at this time, and there is need for further research. Areas of uncertainty include efficacy, optimal point selection, best techniques, and length of time for point stimulation.

show abstract

“…We are impressed with the mean of 20 years of experience of the four authors 1 of this letter in which they challenge our methodology using acupuncture needle stimulation for only 30 minutes with subsequent needle removal, used for analgesia after labour induction 2 . Our three acupuncturists also had a mean experience of approximately 20 years.…”

Section: Authors’ Replymentioning

confidence: 98%