Illustrative review identifies variations in sham devices for dry needling and acupuncture outcomes, suggesting standardization is needed.
Dry needling and acupuncture are non-pharmacological therapies for managing musculoskeletal pain. Although they noticeably differ in their application and proposed rationale, the common ground between the two therapies is the invasive soft-tissue needling. Over the past 30 years, researchers have developed and used various forms of sham/placebo needling devices in randomized controlled clinical trials for assessing a causation-based relationship between needling into myofascial trigger points (dry needling) or acupoints (acupuncture) and purported therapeutic outcomes. However, no clear guidelines exist for choosing a sham needling device for research purposes. Based on the English literature search on PubMed, EMBASE, J-STAGE, and Taiwan Electronic Periodicals, the present illustrative review identified five forms of sham dry-needling/acupuncture needle devices that had been validated and/or used in clinical trials. As of today, however, there is a lack of standardization in sham needling devices, making it difficult to compare results across different studies.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yiu Ming Wong (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: