Acupuncture for patients_with_migraine_rct

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION
Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine
A Randomized Controlled Trial
Klaus Linde, MD
Andrea Streng, PhD
Susanne Jürgens, MSc
Andrea Hoppe, MD
Benno Brinkhaus, MD
Claudia Witt, MD
Stephan Wagenpfeil, PhD
Volker Pfaffenrath, MD
Michael G. Hammes, MD
Wolfgang Weidenhammer, PhD
Stefan N. Willich, MD, MPH
Dieter Melchart, MD
M
IGRAINE IS A COMMON AND
disabling condition that
typically manifests as at-
tacks of severe, pulsat-
ing, 1-sided headaches, often accompa-
nied by nausea, phonophobiaor or
photophobia. Population-based studies
suggest that 6% to 7% of men and 15%
to 18% of women experience migraine
headaches.1,2
Although in most cases it
is sufficient to treat acute headaches,
many patients require interval treat-
ment as attacks occur often or are insuf-
ficientlycontrolled.Drugtreatmentwith
␤-blockers,calciumantagonists,orother
agents has been shown to reduce the fre-
quencyofmigraineattacks;however,the
success of treatment is usually modest
and tolerability often suboptimal.3
Acupuncture is widely used for pre-
venting migraine attacks although its ef-
fectiveness has not yet been fully estab-
lished.4
Since2001,Germansocialhealth
insurance companies have reimbursed
accredited physicians who provide acu-
puncture treatment for chronic pain. By
December 2004 more than 2 million pa-
tients had been treated with acupunc-
ture, about a third of these had mi-
graineortension-type headaches. Inthis
study, the Acupuncture Randomized
Trial (ART-Migraine), we investigated
whether acupuncture reduced head-
ache frequency more effectively than
sham acupuncture or no acupuncture in
patients with migraines.
METHODS
Design
The methods of this trial have been
described in detail elsewhere.5
The
Author Affiliations: Centre for Complementary Medi-
cine Research, Department of Internal Medicine II (Drs
Linde, Streng, Hoppe, Weidenhammer, and Mel-
chart and Mrs Jürgens), Institute of Medical Statistics
and Epidemiology (Dr Wagenpfeil), and Department
of Neurology (Dr Hammes), Technische Universität
München, Munich, Germany; Institute of Social Medi-
cine, Epidemiology, and Health Economics, Charité Uni-
versity Medical Center, Berlin, Germany (Drs Brinkhaus,
Witt, and Willich); Munich, Germany (Dr Pfaffenrath);
and Division of Complementary Medicine, Depart-
ment of Internal Medicine, University Hospital Zurich,
Zurich, Switzerland (Dr Melchart).
Corresponding Author and Reprints: Klaus Linde, MD,
Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, De-
partment of Internal Medicine II, Technische Univer-
sität München, Kaiserstrasse 9, 80801 Munich, Ger-
many (Klaus.Linde@lrz.tu-muenchen.de).
Context Acupuncture is widely used to prevent migraine attacks, but the available
evidence of its benefit is scarce.
Objective To investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with sham acu-
puncture and with no acupuncture in patients with migraine.
Design, Setting, and Patients Three-group, randomized, controlled trial (April 2002-
January 2003) involving 302 patients (88% women), mean (SD) age of 43 (11) years,
with migraine headaches, based on International Headache Society criteria. Patients
were treated at 18 outpatient centers in Germany.
Interventions Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list control. Acupunc-
ture and sham acupuncture were administered by specialized physicians and con-
sisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries
from 4 weeks before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 after
randomization.
Main Outcome Measures Difference in headache days of moderate or severe in-
tensity between the 4 weeks before and weeks 9 to 12 after randomization.
Results Between baseline and weeks 9 to 12, the mean (SD) number of days with
headache of moderate or severe intensity decreased by 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline
of 5.2 (2.5) days in the acupuncture group compared with a decrease to 2.2 (2.7) days
from a baseline of 5.0 (2.4) days in the sham acupuncture group, and by 0.8 (2.0)
days from a baseline if 5.4 (3.0) days in the waiting list group. No difference was de-
tected between the acupuncture and the sham acupuncture groups (0.0 days, 95%
confidence interval, −0.7 to 0.7 days; P=.96) while there was a difference between
the acupuncture group compared with the waiting list group (1.4 days; 95% confi-
dence interval; 0.8-2.1 days; PϽ.001). The proportion of responders (reduction in head-
ache days by at least 50%) was 51% in the acupuncture group, 53% in the sham
acupuncture group, and 15% in the waiting list group.
Conclusion Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reduc-
ing migraine headaches although both interventions were more effective than a wait-
ing list control.
JAMA. 2005;293:2118-2125 www.jama.com
2118 JAMA, May 4, 2005—Vol 293, No. 17 (Reprinted) ©2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved.

ART-Migraine was a randomized, mul-
ticenter trial comparing acupuncture,
sham acupuncture, and a no-acupunc-
ture waiting list condition. The addi-
tional no-acupuncture waiting list con-
trol was included because sham
acupuncture cannot be substituted for
a physiologically inert placebo. Pa-
tients in the acupuncture groups were
blinded to which treatment they re-
ceived. Analysis of headache diaries was
performed by 2 blinded evaluators. The
studydurationperpatientwas28weeks:
4 weeks before randomization, the base-
line; 8 weeks of treatment; and 16 weeks
of follow-up. Patients allocated to the
waiting list received true acupuncture
after 12 weeks and were also followed
up for 24 weeks after randomization (to
investigate whether changes were simi-
lar to those in patients receiving imme-
diate acupuncture).
After the baseline period patients
meeting the inclusion criteria were ran-
domly stratified by center (block size
12 not known to trial centers) in a 2:1:1
ratio (acupuncture:sham acupuncture:
waiting list) using a centralized tele-
phone randomization procedure (ran-
dom list generated with Sample Size
2.0).6
The 2:1:1 ratio was used to fa-
cilitate recruitment and increase the
compliance of trial physicians. All study
participants provided written in-
formed consent. The study was per-
formed according to common guide-
lines for clinical trials (Declaration of
Helsinki, International Conference on
Harmonization–Good Clinical Prac-
tice including certification by external
audit). The protocol had been ap-
proved by all relevant local ethics re-
view boards.
Patients
To be included, patients had to have a
diagnosis of migraine, with or without
aura, according to the criteria of the In-
ternational Headache Society7
; 2 to 8
migraine attacks per month during the
last 3 months and during the baseline
period; be aged 18 to 65 years; had had
migraines for at least 12 months; had
completed baseline headache diary; and
provided written informed consent.
Main exclusion criteria were interval
headaches or additional tension-type
headache on more than 10 days per
month; inability to distinguish be-
tween migraine attacks and additional
tension-type headache; secondary head-
aches; start of headaches after age 50
years; use of analgesics on more than
10 days per month; prophylactic head-
ache treatment with drugs during the
last 4 weeks; and any acupuncture treat-
ment during the last 12 months or at
any time if performed by the partici-
pating trial physician.
Most participants were recruited
through reports in local newspapers;
some patients spontaneously con-
tacted the trial centers.
Interventions
Study interventions were developed by
consensus of acupuncture experts and
societies and were provided by physi-
cians trained (at least 140 hours, me-
dian 500 hours) and experienced (me-
dian 10 years) in acupuncture. Both the
acupuncture and sham acupuncture
treatment consisted of 12 sessions of 30
minutes’ duration, each administered
over a period of 8 weeks (preferably 2
sessions in each of the first 4 weeks, fol-
lowed by 1 session per week in the re-
maining 4 weeks).
Acupuncturetreatmentwassemistan-
dardized. All patients were treated at
what are called basic points (gallblad-
der 20, 40, or 41 or 42, Du Mai–
governing vessel 20, liver 3, San Jiao 3
or 5, extra point Taiyang) bilaterally un-
less explicit reasons for not doing so
were given. Additional points could be
chosen individually, according to pa-
tient symptoms.5
Sterile disposable
1-time-use needles had to be used, but
physicians could choose needle length
and diameter. Physicians were in-
structedtoachieve“deQi”(inwhichpa-
tients experience an irradiating feeling
considered to be indicative of effective
needling) if possible, and needles were
stimulated manually at least once dur-
ing each session. The total number of
needles was limited to 25 per treatment.
Number, duration, and frequency of
the sessions in the sham acupuncture
group were the same as for the acu-
puncture group. In each session, at least
5 out of 10 predefined distant nonacu-
puncture points (see Melchart et al5
for
details) were needled bilaterally (at least
10 needles) and superficially using fine
needles (ie, minimal acupuncture). “De
Qi” and manual stimulation of the
needles were avoided. All acupunctur-
ists received oral instructions, a video-
tape, and a brochure with detailed in-
formation on sham acupuncture.
Patients in the waiting list control
group did not receive any prophylac-
tic treatment for their headaches for a
period of 12 weeks after randomiza-
tion. After that period they received 12
sessions of the acupuncture treatment
described above.
All patients were allowed to treat
acute headaches as needed. Attack treat-
ment should follow the guidelines of the
German Migraine and Headache Soci-
ety8
and had to be documented in the
headache diary.
Patients were informed with respect
to acupuncture and sham acupuncture
inthestudyasfollows:“Inthisstudy,dif-
ferent types of acupuncture will be com-
pared. One type is similar to the acu-
puncture treatment used in China. The
other type does not follow these prin-
ciples, but has also been associated with
positive outcomes in clinical studies.”
Outcome Measurement
All patients completed headache dia-
ries for 4 weeks before randomization
(baseline phase), during the 12 weeks
after randomization, and during the
weeks 21 to 24 after randomization. In
addition, patients were asked to com-
plete a modified version of the pain
questionnaire of the German Society for
the Study of Pain9
before treatment, af-
ter 12 weeks, and after 24 weeks. The
questionnaire includes questions on so-
ciodemographic characteristics, nu-
merical rating scales for pain inten-
sity, questions on workdays lost, global
assessments, etc, as well as the follow-
ing validated scales: (1) the German ver-
sion of the Pain Disability Index10
; (2)
a scale for assessing emotional aspects
of pain (Schmerzempfindungsskala
ACUPUNCTURE TO TREAT MIGRAINE HEADACHES
©2005 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. (Reprinted) JAMA, May 4, 2005—Vol 293, No. 17 2119

SES)11
; (3) the depression scale Allge-
meine Depressionskalla12
; (4) the Ger-
man version of the Medical Outcomes
Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Sur-
vey (SF-36) to assess health-related
quality of life.13
Primary outcome measure was the
difference in number of days with head-
ache of moderate or severe intensity be-
tween the 4 weeks before randomiza-
tion (baseline phase) and weeks 9 to 12
after randomization. Predefined sec-
ondary outcomes included the num-
ber of migraine attacks (episodes of mi-
graine headaches separated by pain-
free intervals of at least 48 hours), total
number of headache days, proportion
of treatment responders, and days with
medication.
To test blinding to treatment and to
assess the credibility of the respective
treatment methods, patients com-
pleted a credibility questionnaire after
the third acupuncture session.14
At the
end of the study, patients were asked
whether they thought that they had re-
ceived acupuncture following the prin-
ciples of Chinese medicine or the other
type of acupuncture.
Physicians documented acupunc-
ture treatment, serious adverse events
and adverse effects for each session. Ad-
verse effects were also reported by pa-
tients at the end of week 12.
Statistical Analysis
Confirmatorytestingoftheprimaryout-
come measure (using SPSS 11.5, SPSS
Inc, Chicago, Ill) was based on the in-
tention-to-treat population, replacing
missing data by baseline values (thus,
setting differences compared with base-
line to zero). A priori ordered 2-sided
null hypotheses to be tested were (1) the
primary outcome measure in the acu-
puncturegroup=outcomeinwaitinglist;
and (2) outcome in the acupuncture
group=outcome in the sham acupunc-
ture group. For each of the hierarchical
hypotheses, we used the t test with a sig-
nificance level of PϽ.05, thus testing in
a first step whether acupuncture is more
efficacious in reducing the number of
days with moderate or severe headache
than no treatment and in a second step
(only if the first null hypothesis was re-
jected) whether acupuncture is more ef-
ficaciousthanshamacupuncture.More-
over, an analysis of covariance with
additional covariates of age at random-
ization and sex was performed to ac-
count for potential baseline differ-
ences. Exploratory analyses (2-sided t
tests and Fisher exact test for pairwise
comparisons of groups without adjust-
ment for multiple testing) based on all
available data without replacing miss-
ing data are reported for secondary out-
come measures. An additional per-
protocol analysis was performed
including only patients without major
protocol violations until week 12.
Due to the positive previous evi-
dence regarding acupuncture for head-
ache4
and the nature of the question
posed by the German health authorities
(See “Role of the Sponsor” in the Ac-
knowledgmentsection)originalsample-
size calculations were based on 1-sided
Figure 1. Trial Flow Diagram
2000 (Approximately) Patients
Contacted
472 Entered Baseline Period
304 Randomized
2 Erroneously Randomized∗
131 Followed Up 24 Weeks
7 Lost to Follow-up After Week 12
6 Lost to Follow-up After Week 12
6 Dropped Out
1 Lost to Follow-up
3 Reason Unclear
1 Unsatisfied
1 Personal Reasons
1 Change of Residence
6 Dropped Out
4 Lost to Follow-up
3 Did Not Accept Assignment
1 Change of Residence
1 Disappointment
1 Unclear
2 Dropped Out (Reason Unclear)
1 Lost to Follow-up
145 Included in Primary Analysis
132 With Data for the Main
Outcome Measure
13 Missing Values Replaced
6 Missing Main Outcome
Measure Data
7 Dropouts Lost to
Follow-Up
Outcome Measure
Measure Data
3 Dropouts Lost to
Follow-Up
Outcome Measure
Measure Data
10 Dropouts Lost to
Follow-Up
116 Included in per Protocol Analysis
16 Excluded
6 Incomplete Data
6 Treatment Protocol Violation
4 Other Protocol Deviations
12 Excluded
7 Incomplete Data
19 Excluded
4 Incomplete Data
6 Treatment Protocol Violation
81 Assigned to Receive
Sham Acupuncture
76 Assigned to Waiting List
(Control)
145 Assigned to Receive
Acupuncture
1500 (Approximately) Not Interested
in Participation or Had Obvious
Violation of Inclusion Criteria
168 Excluded
159 Did Not Meet Inclusion Criteria
9 Recruitment Goal Reached
*Although 2 patients assigned to the acupuncture group came only to the initial examination but did not re-
turn at the end of the baseline phase, one of the large study centers erroneously registered them for random-
ization. According to the analysis plan the intent-to-treat population comprised only patients with baseline
data.

testing.Underthispremisethestudywas
planned to have a power of 80% to de-
tectagroupdifferenceof1daywithmod-
erate or severe headache with assumed
SDsof2.5days(thusaneffectsizeof0.4),
assuming a 20% dropout rate.5
How-
ever, we later decided to use 2-sided
testing to comply better with common
standards.
RESULTS
Between April 2002 and January 2003
approximately 2000 patients with head-
aches expressed interest in participat-
ing in the study (FIGURE 1), 472 en-
tered the 4-week baseline period, and
304 were randomly assigned. At one of
the large study centers, 2 patients were
randomly assigned erroneously be-
cause they had only come to the initial
examination and never returned for the
end of the baseline phase. The intent-
to-treat population comprised all re-
maining 302 patients (145 acupunc-
ture, 81 sham acupuncture, 76 waiting
list) recruited in 18 outpatient cen-
ters. Seven patients (5%) in the acu-
puncture group, 3 (4%) in the sham
acupuncture group, and 10 (13%) in the
waiting list group withdrew or were lost
to follow-up at week 12 (P=.03, ␹2
test).
Another 10 patients (6 acupuncture, 2
sham acupuncture, 2 waiting list) did
not complete the headache diary in a
manner that allowed extraction of the
primary outcome measure, so valid data
at week 12 were available for 132 pa-
tients (91%) in the acupuncture group,
76 (94%) in the sham acupuncture
group, and 64 (84%) in the waiting list
group. At week 24, headache diary data
were available for 131 (90%) of pa-
tients in the acupuncture group and 72
(89%) in the sham acupuncture group.
Groups were comparable at baseline
(TABLE 1). A significant difference was
only found for the physical health sum-
mary scale of the SF-36 (less impair-
ment in the sham acupuncture group).
The mean (SD) number of needles used
per session was 17 (5) in the acupunc-
ture group and 11 (3) in the sham acu-
puncture group. After 3 treatment ses-
sions patients rated the credibility of
acupunctureandshamacupuncturevery
highly and almost identically (TABLE 2).
By the end of the study, patients’ ability
to guess correctly their allocation status
differedsignificantlybetweenthegroups.
Between baseline and week 9 to 12
the number of days with headache of
moderate or severe intensity de-
creased by a mean (SD) of 2.2 (2.7) days
in the acupuncture group vs 2.2 (2.7)
days in the sham acupuncture group
and 0.8 (2.2) days in the waiting list
group (difference acupuncture vs sham
acupuncture, 0.0 days; 95% confi-
dence interval [CI], −0.7 to 0.7 days;
P=.96; acupuncture vs waiting list, 1.4
days, 95% CI, 0.8 to 2.1 days; PϽ.001;
2-sided confirmatory testing, intent-
to-treat population with missing val-
ues replaced). The results were simi-
lar if the analysis was restricted to
patients providing diary data and if
baseline values were entered in the
analysis of covariance as covariates. Ad-
ditionally, the per-protocol analysis
showed similar results. The propor-
tion of responders (reduction of head-
ache days with moderate or severe pain
by at least 50%) was 51% in the acu-
Table 1. Baseline Characteristics
All Patients
(N = 302)
Acupuncture
(n = 145)
Sham
Acupuncture
(n = 81)
Waiting List
(n = 76)
Women, No. (%) 267 (88) 129 (89) 73 (90) 65 (86)
Age, mean (SD), y 42.6 (11.4) 43.3 (11.8) 41.3 (10.2) 42.5 (11.8)
Body mass index, mean (SD) 24.0 (4.1) 23.9 (4.1) 23.6 (4.0) 24.7 (4.4)
Migraine, No. (%)*
Diagnosis
Migraine without aura 226 (75) 109 (75) 62 (77) 55 (72)
Migraine with aura 87 (29) 40 (28) 23 (28) 24 (32)
Duration of disease, mean (SD), y 20.2 (11.8) 20.9 (12.1) 19.2 (11.7) 19.7 (11.3)
Previous acupuncture
(for any condition), No. (%)
121 (40) 63 (43) 30 (37) 28 (37)
Headache symptoms, mean (SD), d
Moderate to severe headache 5.2 (2.6) 5.2 (2.5) 5.0 (2.4) 5.4 (3.0)
Headache 8.2 (3.7) 8.3 (3.4) 8.3 (3.6) 8.0 (4.3)
Accompanying symptoms 4.7 (3.0) 4.7 (2.8) 4.7 (3.0) 5.0 (3.3)
Activities impaired 2.8 (2.2) 2.7 (2.2) 3.0 (2.1) 2.9 (2.5)
Medication needed 4.9 (2.8) 5.0 (2.8) 4.8 (2.6) 4.9 (2.8)
Migraine attacks 2.8 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2) 2.8 (1.2)
Attack medication use during
baseline phase, No. (%)
Triptans 91 (30) 40 (28) 24 (30) 27 (36)
Ergotamines 6 (2) 2 (1) 2 (2) 2 (3)
Analgesics 220 (73) 103 (71) 64 (79) 53 (70)
Combinations 55 (18) 30 (21) 11 (14) 14 (19)
Pain, mean (SD), SES,
t standard score
Affective 55.9 (8.8) 55.4 (9.0) 56.5 (8.9) 56.1 (8.3)
Sensoric 55.1 (8.7) 54.7 (8.7) 54.8 (8.2) 56.2 (9.2)
Disability, mean (SD), PDI 34.4 (16.6) 32.8 (15.5) 35.8 (17.9) 36.2 (16.9)
Health status, mean (SD)
Physical, SF-36† 42.1 (7.5) 41.6 (7.7) 44.0 (6.6) 41.2 (7.8)
Mental, SF-36† 47.5 (9.9) 47.6 (10.1) 47.2 (10.0) 47.5 (9.5)
Depression, ADS,
t standard score
49.4 (8.9) 50.3 (8.6) 48.5 (9.0) 48.6 (9.5)
Average pain rating scale,
mean (SD)‡
5.6 (1.7) 5.6 (1.6) 5.6 (1.6) 5.8 (1.8)
Abbreviations: ADS, Allgemeine Depressionsskala, a depression scale; PDI, pain disability index; SES, Schmerzempfind-
ungsskala, a questionnaire for assessing the emotional aspects of pain; SF-36, Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item
Short-Form Health Survey.
*Eleven patients had both migraine with and without aura.
†Higher values indicate better status.
‡Rating scale 0 to 10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being excruciating.

puncture group, 53% in the sham acu-
puncture group, and 15% in the wait-
ing list group.
Compared with the waiting list con-
trol group, patients receiving acupunc-
ture or sham acupuncture fared sig-
nificantly better for most secondary
outcomemeasures;however,therewere
no significant differences between the
acupuncture group and the sham acu-
puncture group (TABLE 3). Response
differences in the waiting list group be-
came apparent after the first 4 weeks
of treatment and increased until week
12 (FIGURE 2).
The improvements observed in the
acupuncture groups persisted during
the follow-up period (TABLE 4). Re-
sults in the sham acupuncture group
tended to be slightly better than those
in the acupuncture group, but the dif-
ferences were not significant. The pa-
tients in the waiting list group who re-
ceived acupuncture in weeks 13 to 20
showed similar improvements after
treatment as those who had received
immediate treatment (Figure 2).
Within the 24 weeks after random-
ization,7participantsexperiencedseri-
ous adverse events (4 acupuncture, 1
sham acupuncture, 2 waiting list). All
cases were hospital stays considered
unrelated to study condition and inter-
vention (3 had elective surgery, knee
surgery after household injury, salpin-
Table 2. Patient Rating of Treatment Credibility and Guess of Treatment Type*
Acupuncture Sham Acupuncture
P
Value†
No. of
Patients Mean (SD)
No. of
Patients Mean (SD)
Credibility After Third Session
Improvement expected 142 4.9 (0.9) 80 4.9 (0.9) .88
Recommendation to others 142 5.5 (0.9) 80 5.5 (0.8) .66
Treatment logical 142 4.9 (1.1) 80 4.9 (1.1) .98
Effective also for other diseases 142 5.5 (0.8) 80 5.6 (0.7) .35
Treatment Guess at End of Week 24, No. (%)
No. of patients 129 72
Chinese acupuncture 82 (64) 30 (42)
Other type of acupuncture 17 (13) 26 (36) Ͻ.001
Don’t know 30 (23) 16 (22)
*Credibility rating scale with 0 for sham and 6 for maximal agreement.
†P values derived from 2-sided t tests or ␹2
tests.
Table 3. Secondary Outcomes
Acupuncture
Sham
Acupuncture
Waiting
List
Acupuncture vs
Sham Acupuncture,
⌬ (95% CI)
P
Value*
Acupuncture
vs Waiting List,
⌬ (95% CI)
P
Value*
Headache Diary Weeks 9 to 12
Symptoms experienced, mean (SD), d
Moderate to severe headache 2.8 (2.3) 2.6 (2.4) 4.3 (2.2) 0.2 (−0.5 to 0.9) .58 −1.5 (−2.2 to −0.8) Ͻ.001
Headache 4.9 (3.4) 4.7 (3.4) 6.3 (3.6) 0.1 (−0.8 to 1.1) .76 −1.4 (−2.5 to −0.4) .008
Medication use 3.2 (3.0) 3.4 (2.9) 4.4 (3.6) −0.2 (−1.0 to 0.6) .65 −1.2 (−2.2 to −0.2) .01
Accompanying symptoms 2.3 (2.5) 2.3 (2.6) 3.9 (2.6) 0.0 (−0.7 to 0.7) .99 −1.6 (−2.4 to −0.9) Ͻ.001
Activities impaired 1.2 (1.6) 1.3 (1.8) 2.3 (1.9) 0.2 (−0.6 to 0.3) .53 −1.2 (−1.7 to −0.7) Ͻ.001
No. of mean (SD) migraine attacks 1.5 (1.2) 1.6 (1.3) 2.3 (1.1) −0.1 (−0.5 to 0.2) .48 -0.8 (−1.1 to −0.4) Ͻ.001
RR (95% CI) RR (95% CI)
Symptom reduction, No. (%)
Ն50% Days of moderate to
severe headache†
74 (51) 43 (53) 11 (15) 0.96 (0.74 to 1.25) .78 3.53 (2.00 to 6.23) Ͻ.001
Ն50% Of migraine attacks† 78 (54) 43 (53) 13 (17) 1.01 (0.79 to 1.31) Ͼ.99 3.14 (1.87 to 5.28) Ͻ.001
Questionnaire Responses at End of Week 12
⌬ (95% CI) ⌬ (95% CI)
Pain, mean (SD,) SES, t standard scores
Affective 49.3 (10.9) 49.6 (10.7) 54.6 (9.6) −0.3 (−3.3 to 2.8) .85 −5.3 (−8.5 to −2.1) .001
Sensoric 51.5 (10.4) 50.7 (10.0) 56.1 (10.5) 0.8 (−2.1 to 3.7) .60 −4.6 (−7.8 to −1.4) .005
Disability, mean (SD), PDI 20.7 (16.6) 20.2 (5.7) 32.9 (17.1) 0.5 (−4.1 to 5.1) .82 −12.2 (−17.3 to −7.1) Ͻ.001
Health status, mean (SD)
Physical, SF-36‡ 46.7 (7.5) 47.5 (7.0) 42.5 (6.6) −0.8 (−2.9 to 1.3) .44 4.3 (2.0 to 6.5) Ͻ.001
Mental, SF-36‡ 48.6 (8.8) 47.6 (9.6) 47.7 (10.6) 0.9 (−1.6 to 3.5) .47 0.8 (−2.0 to 3.7) .56
Depression, mean (SD) ADS, t standard scores 46.4 (8.6) 47.2 (10.9) 48.4 (9.8) −1.9 (−4.8 to 0.9) .18 −0.7 (−3.5 to 2.1) .60
Average pain rating scale, mean (SD)§ 3.7 (2.0) 3.6 (2.1) 5.6 (2.1) 0.1 (−0.5 to 0.6) .87 −1.9 (−2.5 to −1.3) Ͻ.001
Abbreviations: ADS, Allgemeine Depressionsskala depression scale; CI, confidence interval; ⌬, mean difference between groups; PDI, Pain Disability Index; RR, responder ratio,
proportion responders acupuncture/proportion responders control; SES, Schmerzempfindungsskala, a questionnaire for assessing the emotional aspects of pain; SF-36, Medi-
cal Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.
*Exploratory P values from 2-sided t tests or Fisher exact test; percentages are column percentages.
†Responder proportions were calculated considering all patients with missing data as nonresponders (145 acupuncture group, 81 sham acupuncture group, and 76 waiting list
group.
‡Higher values indicate better status; minor discrepancies between differences calculated from group means presented in the table and ⌬ are due to rounding.
§Rating scale of 0 to 10, with 0 being no pain and 10 being excruciating.

gitis,hypertensivecrisis,diagnosticpro-
cedures). Thirty-six of 144 (25%)
patientswhohadreceivedatleast1acu-
puncture treatment reported a total of
37 adverse effects, and 13 of 81 (16%)
receiving sham acupuncture reported
a total of 14 adverse effects (P=.13,
Fisher exact test). Ten participants in
the acupuncture vs 2 in the sham acu-
puncturegroupsreportedthatthetreat-
menttriggeredmigraineattacksorhead-
ache, 6 vs 1 reported fatigue, and 4 vs
2 reported hematoma, respectively
COMMENT
In this randomized trial, acupuncture
was no more effective than sham acu-
puncture in reducing migraine head-
aches although both interventions were
more effective than a waiting list con-
trol. Our study is, to date, one of the
largest and most rigorous trials on the
efficacy of acupuncture. The advan-
tages to this study include a protocol
based on current guidelines for mi-
graine trials,15
strictly concealed cen-
tral randomization, assessment of the
credibility of interventions, blinded di-
ary evaluation, interventions based on
expert consensus, and provision of care
delivered by qualified and experi-
enced medical acupuncturists. Our
study also had high follow-up rates.
One potential limitation of the study
is that participants probably had a more
positive attitude toward acupuncture
than the typical patient with migraines
although experiences from ongoing re-
imbursement programs in Germany
show that a large number of patients
with chronic pain seek acupuncture
treatment. Dropout rates in our study
were low compared with other mi-
grainepreventiontrials.3
However,more
patients in the waiting list group dis-
continued participation in the study af-
ter randomization than did those in the
other 2 groups. This was probably due
to disappointment about having to wait
another 12 weeks for treatment after the
4-week baseline phase.
When patients were asked at the end
of the trial to guess to which group they
had been assigned, the patients’ an-
swers differed significantly between the
Figure 2. Number of Days With Moderate to Severe Headache
7
3
2
1
4
5
6
0
Week
DaysWithModerate
orSevereHeadache Baseline 1 to 4 5 to 8 9 to 12 13 to 16 17 to 20 21 to 24
Acupuncture
Sham Acupuncture
Waiting List
Waiting List (With Treatment)
Error bars indicate 95% confidence intervals.
Table 4. Follow-up Data
Acupuncture
Sham
Acupuncture
Acupuncture vs
Sham Acupuncture,
⌬ (95%CI)
P
Value*
Headache Diary Weeks 21 to 24
Symptoms experienced, mean (SD), d
Moderate to severe headache 3.2 (2.5) 2.6 (2.1) 0.5 (−0.2 to 1.2) .13
Headache 5.2 (3.3) 4.8 (3.1) 0.4 (−0.6 to 1.3) .42
Medication 3.6 (3.7) 3.4 (2.5) 0.1 (−0.8 to 1.1) .76
Accompanying symptoms 2.3 (2.5) 2.5 (2.5) −0.1 (−0.8 to 0.6) .72
Activities impaired 1.3 (1.8) 1.5 (2.0) −0.2 (−0.7 to 0.3) .44
Migraine attacks, mean (SD) 1.8 (1.4) 1.6 (1.2) 0.2 (−0.3 to 0.5) .55
RR (95%CI)
Symptom reduction, No. (%)†
Ն50% Days of moderate to
severe headache
66 (46) 42 (52) 0.88 (0.67 to 1.16) .41
Ն50% Days of migraine attacks 64 (44) 39 (48) 0.92 (0.69 to 1.23) .58
Questionnaire Response at the End of Week 24
⌬ (95%CI)
Pain, mean (SD), SES,
t standard scores
Affective 48.6 (11.3) 47.0 (10.3) 1.56 (−1.6 to 4.8) .33
Sensoric 51.7 (11.2) 49.6 (9.8) 2.0 (−1.1 to 5.2) .20
Disability, mean (SD), PDI 17.4 (15.5) 15.5 (14.6) 2.0 (−2.4 to 6.4) .38
Health status, mean (SD)‡
Physical, SF-36 46.7 (7.0) 48.8 (7.3) −2.1 (−4.2 to 0.0) .05
Mental, SF-36 49.4 (9.0) 47.7 (9.8) 1.7 (−1.0 to 4.4) .22
Depression, mean (SD), ADS,
t standard scores
45.8 (9.1) 46.1 (9.7) −0.3 (−3.1 to 2.4) .82
Average pain, mean (SD),
rating scale
3.8 (2.1) 3.4 (2.0) 0.4 (−0.2 to 1.0) .24
Abbreviations: ADS, Allgemeine Depressionsskala, depression scale; CI, confidence interval; ⌬, mean difference between
groups; PDI, pain disability index; RR, responder ratio (proportion responders acupuncture/proportion responders con-
trol); SES, Schmerzempfindungsskala, questionnaire for assessing the emotional aspects of pain; SF-36, Medical Out-
comes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey.
*Exploratory P values from 2-sided t tests or Fisher exact test.
†Responder proportions were calculated considering all patients with missing data as nonresponders (145, acupuncture
group; 81, sham acupuncture group).
‡Higher values indicate better status; minor discrepancies between differences calculated from group means presented in
the table and ⌬ are due to rounding.

acupuncture and sham acupuncture
groups, which indicates some degree of
unblinding. However, the results of the
credibility assessment and overall find-
ings of our trial make it unlikely that
the comparison between acupuncture
and sham acupuncture has been se-
verely biased by unblinding.
In this study, it was not possible to
blind waiting list patients. Therefore,
we cannot rule out that the difference
between acupuncture and sham acu-
puncture is overestimated due to bias.
However, there are several arguments
that could explain why the influence of
bias should be limited. There was a sig-
nificant improvement over time in the
waiting list group in the first 12 weeks.
This was probably due to the natural
course of the disease or the general
effect of being in a study (Hawthorne
effect). This improvement, however,
makes it unlikely that patients in the
waiting list group reported negatively
biased data in their diary. Analgesic use
was lower in the acupuncture group and
sham acupuncture group, thereby mak-
ing an influence of effective cointer-
ventions unlikely. Follow-up data con-
firmed the improvements observed after
treatment. After completion of the treat-
ment, patients had no further contact
with acupuncturists. In addition, pa-
tients received and sent diaries and
questionnaires directly to the study cen-
ter, decreasing the likelihood of posi-
tively biased diary data.
The lack of differences between acu-
puncture and sham acupuncture in our
study indicates that point location and
otheraspectsconsideredrelevantforacu-
puncture did not make a difference. To
someextent,thisfindingcontradictscur-
rent evidence in the literature. A num-
ber of small, mostly single-center trials
havecomparedacupuncturewithavari-
etyofshaminterventions.4
Althoughthe
results of these trials were not fully con-
sistent,theysuggestedthat,overall,acu-
puncture is superior to sham interven-
tions. We cannot rule out that the
acupunctureinterventionsusedinsome
of the older studies were more appro-
priateforthetreatmentofmigraine.Nev-
ertheless,weareconfidentthatthecon-
sensus-based,semistandardizedstrategy
inourmulticentertrialrepresentsasuit-
able intervention. Another potential
explanation for the discrepancy in find-
ingscouldbeanoverestimationofeffects
over sham controls in the smaller, older
studies due to bias or chance.
Aninterestingfindingofourtrialisthe
strong response to sham acupuncture.
The improvement over and the differ-
ences compared with the waiting list
groupareclearlyclinicallyrelevant.The
numberofdayswithmoderateorsevere
headacheandthefrequencyofmigraine
attacks were reduced by 50% or more
compared with baseline in half of the
patients and the improvement persisted
over several months. This response rate
is comparable with that observed dur-
ing treatment with medications proven
to be effective migraine prophylaxis,
whereasresponseratesinplacebogroups
are typically around 30%.3,16-18
Also, the
effect of sham acupuncture over wait-
inglistinourtrialislargerthanthatfound
in a recent meta-analysis of pain trials
including both a placebo and a no treat-
ment control.19
The strong response to
sham acupuncture in our trial could be
achancefinding.Itcouldalsobethatthe
studypatientswithhighexpectationsof
acupuncture treatment reported posi-
tively biased data. However, the validity
of our results is supported by the con-
sistency of findings as judged by a vari-
ety of instruments including a head-
ache diary and validated questionnaires
on quality of life, disability, and emo-
tional aspects of pain.
The sham acupuncture intervention
in our study was designed to minimize
potential physiological effects by nee-
dling superficially at points distant from
the segments of “true” treatment points
and by using fewer needles than in the
acupuncture group. However, we can-
not rule out that this intervention may
havehadsomephysiologicaleffects.The
nonspecific physiological effects of nee-
dling may include local alteration in cir-
culation and immune function as well
as neurophysiological and neurochemi-
cal responses.20,21
The question investi-
gated in our comparison of acupunc-
ture and sham acupuncture was not
whether skin penetration matters but
whether adherence to the traditional
concepts of acupuncture makes a dif-
ference. For this purpose, our minimal
acupuncture intervention was clearly an
appropriate sham control although it
might not be an inert placebo.
Anotherexplanationfortheimprove-
ments that we observed could be that
acupunctureandshamacupunctureare
associated with particularly potent pla-
ceboeffects.Thereissomeevidencethat
complexmedicalinterventionsormedi-
cal devices have higher placebo effects
than medication.22
Furthermore, acu-
puncture treatment has characteristics
that are considered relevant in the con-
text of placebo effects,23,24
including
exotic conceptual framework, empha-
sis on the “individual as a whole,” fre-
quentpatient-practitionercontacts,and
the repeated “ritual” of needling.
A recent large, pragmatic trial from
the United Kingdom has shown that pa-
tients receiving acupuncture for chronic
headache in addition to care from a gen-
eralist physician did significantly bet-
ter than patients receiving care from
generalist physician alone at little ad-
ditional cost.25,26
Preliminary results of
alarge,clinicaltrialfromGermanyseem
to confirm these findings.27
However,
these studies did not include a sham
control group. Given the uncertain-
ties regarding the potential physiologi-
cal effects of sham interventions and the
question of enhanced placebo effects,
it is crucial that direct head-to-head
comparisons of acupuncture and
proven standard drug treatments are
conducted in addition to sham-
controlled trials. Until now, only 2 rig-
orous trials have been published that
compared acupuncture with metopro-
lol28
or flunarizine.29
Their results sug-
gest that acupuncture might be simi-
larly as effective as medication. Two
other trials with head-to-head compari-
sons of acupuncture and standard drug
treatment are currently under way.30,31
Such trials are also desirable to assess
the aspects of safety and compliance.
In our study, only minor adverse ef-
fects were reported and no patient with-
drew due to adverse effects. This com-

pares favorably to findings in trials
studying drug treatment. In the larg-
est published randomized trial on mi-
graine prevention, the drop-out rate due
to adverse effects was 6.7% for 160 mg
of propranolol, 6.9% for 10 mg of flu-
narizine, and 8.0% for 5 mg of flunari-
zine.19
A recent large randomized trial
of topiramate reported a drop-out rate
of more than 20%.20
In conclusion, in our trial, acupunc-
ture was associated with a reduction of
migraine headaches compared with no
treatment; however, the effects were
similar to those observed with sham
acupuncture and may be due to non-
specific physiological effects of nee-
dling, to a powerful placebo effect, or
to a combination of both.
Author Contributions: Dr Linde had full access to all
of the data in the study and takes responsibility for
the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data
analysis.
Study concept and design: Linde, Streng, Jürgens,
Brinkhaus, Witt, Wagenpfeil, Pfaffenrath, Hammes,
Weidenhammer, Willich, Melchart.
Acquisition of data: Linde, Streng, Jürgens, Hoppe,
Wagenpfeil.
Analysis and interpretation of data: Linde, Brinkhaus,
Witt, Wagenpfeil, Weidenhammer, Willich, Melchart
Drafting of the manuscript: Linde.
Critical revision of the manuscript for important in-
tellectual content: Linde, Jürgens, Hoppe, Brinkhaus,
Witt, Pfaffenrath, Hammes, Weidenhammer, Willich,
Melchart.
Statistical analysis: Linde, Streng, Wagenpfeil,
Weidenhammer.
Obtained funding: Willich, Melchart.
Administrative, technical, or material support: Streng,
Jürgens, Hoppe, Brinkhaus, Witt, Hammes.
Study supervision: Streng, Wagenpfeil, Pfaffenrath,
Willich, Melchart.
Financial Disclosures: None reported.
Participating Trial Centers: Hospital outpatient units:
Centre for Complementary Medicine Research, De-
partment of Internal Medicine II, Technische Univer-
sität München, Munich (A. Eustachi, N. Gerling, J. J.
Kleber); Department Complementary Medicine and
Integrative Medicine, Knappschafts-Krankenhaus Es-
sen (G. Dobos, A. Füchsel, I. Garäus, C. Niggemeier,
T. Rampp, L. Tan); Department of Anaesthesiology,
Kreiskrankenhaus Altötting (H. Bettstetter, N. Schraml);
Hospital for Traditional Chinese Medicine Kötzting (S.
Hager, U. Hager, S. Ma, T. Yangchun); Pain Unit
Marien-Krankenhaus Lünen (A. Lux).
Private practices: G. Ahrens, Hausham; C. Ammann,
Berlin; J. Bek, Berlin; K. J. Driller, Dortmund; I. Eiswirth,
Velbert; C. H. Hempen, J. Hummelsberger, H. Leon-
hardy, and R. Nögel, München; A. Jung, Berlin; U.
Kausch, Bogen; B. Kersting, Hasbergen; V. Lerke, Prien;
C. Luckas, Nussdorf; J. Schäfers, Mönchengladbach;
A. Wiebrecht, Berlin.
Funding/Support: Study activities at the Centre for
Complementary Medicine Research, Munich were
funded by the following social health insurance funds:
Deutsche Angestellten-Krankenkasse, Hamburg;
Barmer Ersatzkasse, Wuppertal; Kaufmännische Kran-
kenkasse, Hannover; Hamburg-Münchener Kranken-
kasse, Hamburg; Hanseatische Krankenkasse, Ham-
burg; Gmünder Ersatzkasse, Schwäbisch Gmünd; HZK
Krankenkasse für Bau-und Holzberufe, Hamburg;
Brühler Ersatzkasse, Solingen; Krankenkasse Ein-
tracht Heusenstamm, Heusenstamm; Buchdrucker
Krankenkasse, Hannover.
Study activities at the Institute for Social Medicine, Epi-
demiology and Health Economics, Berlin were funded
by the following social health insurance funds: Tech-
niker Krankenkasse, Hamburg; Betriebskranken-
kasse, Bosch; Betriebskrankenkasse, Daimler Chrysler;
Betriebskrankenkasse, Bertelsmann; Betriebskranken-
kasse, BMW; Betriebskrankenkasse, Siemens; Betrieb-
skrankenkasse, Deutsche Bank; Betriebskranken-
kasse, Hoechst; Betriebskrankenkasse, Hypo
Vereinsbank; Betriebskrankenkasse, Ford; Betriebsk-
rankenkasse, Opel; Betriebskrankenkasse, Allianz; Be-
triebskrankenkasse, Vereins-und Westbank; Handel-
skrankenkasse.
Role of the Sponsors: The trial was initiated due to a
request from German health care authorities (Fed-
eral Committee of Physicians and Social Health Insur-
ance Companies, German Federal Social Insurance Au-
thority) and sponsored by German Social Health
Insurance Companies. The health authorities had re-
quested a randomized trial including a sham control
condition with an observation period of at least 6
months to decide whether acupuncture should be in-
cluded into routine reimbursement. All other deci-
sions on design, data collection, analysis, and inter-
pretation, as well as publication were the complete
responsibility of the researchers.
Acknowledgment: We thank Joseph Hummels-
berger, MD, Munich, and Dominik Irnich, MD, De-
partment of Anaesthesiology, Ludwig-Maximilians-
University, Munich, for developing the acupuncture
treatment protocols together with Dr Hammes, and
for their input at various levels of the protocol devel-
opment. We would like to thank Albrecht Neiss, PhD,
Institute of Medical Statistics and Epidemiology, Tech-
nische Universität München, for statistical advice.
REFERENCES
1. Stewart WF, Shechter A, Rasmussen BK. Mi-
graine prevalence: a review of population-based
studies. Neurology. 1994;44(suppl 4):S17-S23.
2. Lipton RB, Stewart WF, Diamond S, Diamond ML,
Reed M. Prevalence and burden of migraine in the
United States: data from the American Migraine Study
II. Headache. 2001;41:646-657.
3. Gray RN, Goslin RE, McCrory DC, Eberlein K, Tul-
sky J, Hasselblad V. Drug treatments for the preven-
tion of migraine headache: technical review 2.3. 1999;
Prepared for the Agency of Health Care Policy and Re-
search. Available at: http://www.clinpol.mc.duke
.edu. Accessibility verified March 31, 2005.
4. Melchart D, Linde K, Fischer P, et al. Acupuncture
for recurrent headaches: a systematic review of ran-
domized controlled trials. Cephalalgia. 1999;19:779-
786.
5. Melchart D, Linde K, Streng A, et al. Acupuncture
randomized trials (ART) in patients with migraine or
tension-type headache—design and protocols. For-
sch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd. 2003;
10:179-184.
6. Machin D, Campbell MJ, Fayers PM, Pinol APY
Sample Size Tables for Clinical Studies. 2nd ed. Ox-
ford, England: Blackwell; 1997.
7. International Headache Society. ICH-10 guide for
headaches. Cephalalgia. 1997;17(suppl 19):1-82.
8. DienerHC,BruneK,GerberWD,GöbelH,Pfaffenrath
V. Behandlung der Migräneattacke und
Migräneprophylaxe.DtÄrztebl.1997;94:C2277-C2283.
9. Nagel B, Gerbershagen HU, Lindena G, Pfingsten
M. Entwicklung und empirische Überprüfung des Deut-
schen Schmerzfragebogens der DGSS. Schmerz. 2002;
16:263-270.
10. Dillmann U, Nilges P, Saile E, Gerbershagen HU.
Behinderungseinschätzung bei chronischen
Schmerzpatienten. Schmerz. 1994;8:100-110.
11. Geissner E. Die Schmerzempfindungsskala (SES).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe; 1996.
12. Hautzinger M, Bailer M. Allgemeine Depres-
sionsskala (ADS): Die deutsche Version des CES-D.
Weinheim, Germany: Beltz; 1993.
13. Bullinger M, Kirchberger I. SF-36 Fragebogen zum
Gesundheitszustand. Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe;
1998.
14. Vincent C. Credibility assessments in trials of
acupuncture. Complement Med Res. 1990;4:8-11.
15. International Headache Society Clinical Trials
Subcommittee. Guidelines for controlled trials of drugs
in migraine: second edition. Cephalalgia. 2000;20:765-
786.
16. Linde K, Rossnagel K. Propranolol for migraine pro-
phylaxis [Cochrane Review on CD-ROM]. Oxford, En-
gland: Cochrane Library, Update Software; 2004; is-
sue 2.
17. Diener HC, Matias-Guiu J, Hartung E, et al. Effi-
cacy and tolerability in migraine prophylaxis of flu-
narizine in reduced doses: a comparison with pro-
pranolol 160 mg daily. Cephalalgia. 2002;22:209-221.
18. Brandes JL, Saper JR, Diamond M, et al. Topira-
mate for migraine prevention: a randomized con-
trolled trial. JAMA. 2004;291:965-973.
19. Hrobjartsson A, Gotzsche PC. Is the placebo pow-
erless? an analysis of clinical trials comparing placebo
with no treatment. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1594-1602.
20. Sandkühler J. The organization and function of
endogenous antinociceptive systems. Prog Neurobiol.
1996;50:49-81.
21. Irnich D, Beyer A. Neurobiologische Grundlagen
der Akupunkturanalgesie Schmerz. 2002;16:93-102.
22. Kaptchuk TJ, Goldman P, Stone DA, Stason WB.
Do medical devices have enhanced placebo effects?
J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:786-792.
23. KaptchukTJ.Theplaceboeffectinalternativemedi-
cine: can the performance of a healing ritual have clini-
cal significance? Ann Intern Med. 2002;136:817-825.
24. Walach H, Jonas WB. Placebo research: the evi-
dence base for harnessing self-healing capacities. J Al-
tern Complement Med. 2004;10(suppl 1):S103-S112.
25. Vickers AJ, Rees RW, Zollmann CE, et al. Acupunc-
ture for chronic headache in primary care: large, prag-
matic, randomised trial. BMJ. 2004;328:744-746.
26. Wonderling D, Vickers AJ, Grieve R, McCarney R.
Cost effectiveness analysis of a randomised trial of acu-
puncture for chronic headache in primary care. BMJ.
2004;328:747-749.
27. Jena S, Becker-Wtt C, Brinkhaus B, Selim D, Wil-
lichSN.Effectivenessofacupuncturetreatmentforhead-
ache—the Acupuncture in Routine Care Study (ARC
Headache). Focus Altern Complement Ther. 2004;
9(suppl 1):17.
28. Hesse J, Mogelvang B, Simonsen H. Acupuncture
vs metoprolol in migraine prophylaxis: a randomized trial
oftriggerpointinactivation.JInternMed.1994;235:451-
456.
29. Allais G, De Lorenzo C, Quirico P, et al. Acupunc-
ture in the prophylactic treatment of migraine without
aura: a comparison with flunarizine. Headache. 2002;42:
855-861.
30. Molsberger A, Diener HC, Krämer J, et al. GERAC-
Akupunktur-Studien—Modellvorhaben zur beur-
teilung der Wirksamkeit [GERAC acupuncture trials—a
program to assess effectiveness]. Dt Ärztebl. 2002;99:
A1819-A1824.
31. Melchart D, Streng A, Reitmayr S, Hoppe A,
Weidenhammer W, Linde K. Programm zur Evalua-
tion der Patientenversorgung mit Akupunktur (PEP-
AC)—die wissenschaftliche Begleitung des Modell-
vorhabens der Ersatzkassen [Program to evaluate
acupuncture in the German health care system (PEP-
AC)—the scientific concept of the program of a group
of statutory sickness funds]. Z ärztl Fortbild Qual
Gesundhwes. 2004;98:471-473.

Acupuncture for patients_with_migraine_rct

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (6)

Similar to Acupuncture for patients_with_migraine_rct (20)

More from Instituto de Psicobiofísica Rama Schain (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Acupuncture for patients_with_migraine_rct