RESUMO
Introduction: The concept of acupoints is a key defining feature of acupuncture, yet the scientific basis of acupoints remains unclear. In recent years, there has been an emerging body of animal studies demonstrating an association between cutaneous sensitivity and visceral pathophysiology, through which acupoints over the skin are sensitized in pathologic conditions. Several studies with humans have also been conducted to assess whether the sensitivity of acupoints is distinct in healthy versus clinical populations. However, no systematic review has been conducted to collate and synthesize the status and quality of human studies on this topic. Methods: A systematic review was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA). Literature search was performed by combining variations of search terms related to acupoints and pain sensitivity in PubMed, EMBASE, and Alt HealthWatch (EBSCOHost). Screening of titles and abstracts and review of full-text articles for eligibility were performed by two independent investigators. Using a predefined template, information on subject characteristics, pathologic conditions, names of assessed acupoints, and relevant main findings were extracted from the included studies. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for case-control studies. A quality assessment checklist was also developed by the present authors to examine the quality of reporting of experimental variables that were considered important for evaluating acupoint sensitivity. Results: A total of 3453 studies were identified from the database search, of which 11 met the eligibility criteria to be included in this review. Six studies examined the mechanical sensitivity of body acupoints, and the remaining five studies examined the mechanical sensitivity of auricular points. Overall, findings suggest that the sensitivity of acupoints may be distinct in healthy versus clinical populations. However, there were various potential sources of bias and substantial heterogeneity across included studies in clinical conditions and acupoints. Conclusion: There is at present insufficient evidence to support or refute that acupoints in humans are sensitized in pathologic conditions. There were various methodological issues, including small sample size and poor reporting of experimental design and variables, which limit the ability to draw a definitive conclusion on this topic. It is also largely unclear whether it is the general body regions rather than specific acupoints that may be sensitized, as most studies did not include nonacupoint location(s) for comparison. Thus, further rigorous research is warranted.
RESUMO
Introduction: Despite substantial progress made in the field of acupuncture research, the existence and specificity of acupoints remain controversial. In recent years, the concept of acupoint sensitization has emerged as a theoretical framework for understanding acupoints as dynamic functional entities that are sensitized in pathological conditions. Based on this premise, some have claimed that specific acupoints are thermally distinct between healthy and clinical populations, but no systematic review has been conducted to synthesize and evaluate the quality of studies supporting such claims. In this review, we provide a summary and quality assessment of the existing literature addressing the question of whether changes in skin temperature at specific acupoints are indicative of pathological conditions. Methods: A systematic literature search was performed in PubMed, EMBASE, and AltHealthWatch (EBSCO Host), by combining variations of search terms relevant to acupoints and temperature. The search was limited to the English language, and publication dates ranged from database inception to December 2020. Two authors independently screened all resulting abstracts and subsequently read full-text articles for eligibility. Information on study design, sample, acupoints, parameters of skin temperature assessments, and main findings were extracted from included studies. Quality of the thermal sensing methodology was evaluated using a thermal assessment checklist, adapted from the Thermographic Imaging in Sports and Exercise Medicine (TISEM) consensus checklist, and a modified Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for case-control studies. Results: The search strategy yielded a total of 1771 studies, of which 10 articles met the eligibility criteria. Eight studies compared skin temperature at acupoints in healthy versus clinical populations, and two studies assessed within-subject changes in temperature of acupoints in relation to changes in health status. There were seven clinical conditions examined in the included studies: chronic bronchial asthma, chronic hepatitis, hyperplasia of mammary glands, infertility, intracranial hypertension, obesity, and primary dysmenorrhea. There were numerous methodological quality issues related to skin temperature measurements. Eight studies with case-control designs reported significant differences between healthy and clinical populations in temperature at certain acupoints. Two studies with pre-post designs reported that changes in health-disease status could be associated with changes in temperature at specific acupoints. Conclusion: A review of the available literature suggests that certain acupoints may be thermally distinct between healthy and unhealthy states. However, given the methodological limitations and heterogeneity across included studies, no definitive conclusion could be drawn as to whether changes in skin temperature at specific acupoints are indicative of pathological conditions.
