[Acupuncture: quo vadis?]

On the current discussion about efficacy and "point-specificity" of the needle therapy To improve the evidence base for acupuncture in pain treatment the German health insurance initiated the so called "Acupuncture randomised trials (ART)" and "German Acupuncture Trials" (GERAC) with a sample size of 300 (ART) and 1000 (GERAC) patients, providing a new dimension in acupuncture research. These studies have yielded data, which indicate that acupuncture is effective in the treatment of migraine, tension type headache, osteoarthritis of the knee and chronic low back pain. For the two latter indications acupuncture showed an even higher therapeutic response rate than conventional standard treatment. In migraine acupuncture showed an effect comparable to pharmacological treatment. The studies moreover indicate that the relevance of point-specific effects may have been overestimated concerning some indications. This article discusses the results of ART and GERAC, based on differentiating the mechanisms of action in acupuncture therapy. It is shown that the current data neither support the postulate of a "no-matter-where acupuncture" nor the irrefutability of the theorems of Chinese Medicine. Future studies will have to determine more precisely the mechanism by which the therapeutic effect of acupuncture is mediated. Furthermore, it will be necessary to find out more clearly in what diseases the location of needling represents the crucial part of the treatment and in what diseases rather different factors, like the intensity of stimulation or the doctor-patient interaction, are more relevant for the therapeutic effect. Research into acupuncture is still at the beginning. For this reason it should be avoided to draw premature and untenable conclusions from the current data.