Indwelling needles carry greater risks than acupuncture techniques
BMJ 1999; 318 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7182.536 (Published 20 February 1999) Cite this as: BMJ 1999;318:536
- E Ernst, Director (e.ernst{at}ex.ac.uk),
- A R White, Research fellow
- Department of Complementary Medicine, School of Postgraduate Medicine and Health Sciences, University of Exeter, Exeter EX2 4NT
EDITOR—A discussion of the adverse effects of acupuncture has led to considerable anxiety among those who practise this treatment.1 Many have claimed that serious complications are avoidable and therefore do not occur in countries where acupuncturists are adequately trained. It has also been stated that causality is often inadequately established in case reports. Moreover, it has also been said that doctor-acupuncturists are just as likely to cause complications.
In an attempt to respond to these issues we systematically searched the literature available on Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, for all reports of serious adverse effects resulting from acupuncture and published in 1997, the year not covered by our review. The results are summarised in the table. (A complete list of references is available on the BMJ's website.2)
Summary of eight adverse effects of acupuncture reported in 19972
Eight adverse effects were reported. The most common was pneumothorax. Five reports originated in the United States, and one each in Japan, Taiwan, and Brazil. One complication was caused by an acupuncturist who was not medically qualified.3 No information on qualifications was given in the other cases, but it was implied that treatment was carried out by non-medically trained acupuncturists. The use of indwelling needles seems to carry greater risks than the use of conventional acupuncture techniques.
Acupuncture is not free of risks. All adverse events reported in 1997 would have been avoidable. The absolute number of cases is small, but the degree of underreporting remains unknown.