Why the study?
Does auricular acupressure reduce cigarette consumption and withdrawal symptoms in active smokers?
Population
70 active smokers in Hong Kong
Comparison
Auricular acupressure using Shenmen, Lung… vs Sham auricular acupressure using non-meridian…
Design
RCT, randomized, sham-controlled
Follow-up
3 months after treatment
Key result
Auricular acupressure did not significantly increase the proportion of smokers achieving carbon monoxide expiration <6 ppm compared to sham acupressure (18.2% vs 16.7%; P=0.87).
Authors
Loading...
Does not support auricular acupressure for smoking cessation; confirms no benefit versus sham in this RCT.
RCT (n=70)
Sham-controlled
Randomized
No
Does auricular acupressure reduce cigarette consumption and withdrawal symptoms in active smokers?
Absolute Event Rate: 18.2% vs 16.7%
p-value: p=.87
Auricular acupressure did not significantly improve smoking cessation rates or withdrawal symptoms compared to sham acupressure in active smokers.
Wing et al. (2010) conducted an RCT in Habitual smokers (n=70). Auricular acupressure vs. Sham acupressure on non-meridian points was evaluated on Reduction of carbon monoxide expiration to levels less than 6 ppm (p=.87). Auricular acupressure did not significantly increase the proportion of smokers achieving carbon monoxide expiration <6 ppm compared to sham acupressure (18.2% vs 16.7%; P=0.87).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: