Ghislaine Morin
Réservez une séance
FR — Français
📅
Book a session — Calendly
 

Overview

False as stated. There is a large scientific literature on acupuncture: thousands of randomised trials and dozens of systematic reviews, including several Cochrane reviews. The real issue is not the absence of evidence but its uneven quality.

Where this idea comes from

It comes from a legitimate demand, formulated too quickly. Faced with a practice that claims 2,000 years of tradition, the scientific reflex is to ask for proof. When the answer is "it depends on the indication and the trial", it sounds like an evasion.
It also comes from the media treatment of a few negative trials. A null result on knee osteoarthritis makes headlines; a positive meta-analysis on migraine does not. The impression left is that the file is closed, while the literature keeps moving.
A third source is the confusion between two questions. "Is there evidence that acupuncture beats a placebo needle?" and "is there evidence that acupuncture helps patients?" are not the same. The first is debated, the second is better documented, and the public debate mixes them constantly.

What Chinese medicine says

TCM does not claim to be a science in the modern sense, and does not produce its own clinical trials. Its legitimacy is historical and clinical: centuries of observation, codified in texts and transmitted through practice. That is a different kind of warrant.
What the tradition can do, and increasingly does, is submit its protocols to external evaluation: standardised points, fixed number of sessions, measured outcomes. Some of its claims survive that test, others do not, and both results are informative.
The tradition also contains claims that no trial supports, such as pulse diagnosis detecting a tumour. Distinguishing the defensible from the indefensible is the practitioner's job, and it is more useful to patients than a general defence of the whole system.

What the research says

The strongest evidence concerns chronic pain. The individual patient data meta-analysis by Vickers et al. (J Pain, 2018), covering about 20,000 patients, finds acupuncture superior to no treatment and modestly superior to sham, with effects persisting over time.
For migraine prophylaxis, the Cochrane review by Linde et al. (2009) concludes that acupuncture is effective and at least as effective as drug prophylaxis, with fewer adverse effects. A 2025 Cochrane update (Xia et al.) refines the estimate without reversing it.
Negative or neutral results also exist and must be reported: Hinman et al. (JAMA, 2014) found no significant benefit of needle acupuncture over sham for chronic knee pain, and several trials on insomnia or anxiety show small, inconsistent effects.
What is established: a real, modest effect on several painful and digestive conditions, superior to doing nothing. What is debated: the share of that effect attributable to the specific technique. What is unknown: reliable predictors of response in a given patient.

What to expect in practice

In practice, evidence-based practice means three things: choosing indications with data, setting a measurable objective, and stopping when the objective is not met. It excludes both magical claims and blanket dismissal.
At the Centre Équilibre in Grenoble, Ghislaine Morin states what is documented, what is debated and what is unknown for each indication, and reviews the result after a few sessions. The TCM dispensary she organises there is also a place to ask that question directly.

When to consult, and when not to

Consult for an indication where the literature is positive enough (chronic pain, migraine, chemotherapy-induced nausea) and after a medical assessment has excluded a serious cause.
Do not consult for a condition where evidence is absent or negative and where a delay would be harmful: undiagnosed mass, unexplained weight loss, neurological deficit, infection, psychiatric emergency. A lack of evidence is not a neutral position when time matters.

Frequently asked questions

How many studies exist on acupuncture?
Several thousand randomised trials and dozens of systematic reviews, including Cochrane reviews on migraine, tension headache, low back pain and chemotherapy-induced nausea. The volume is not the problem: the difficulty lies in uneven trial quality and the variability of the practices compared.
Why do studies contradict each other?
Because they do not measure the same thing: different points, different numbers of sessions, different control groups, different outcomes. A trial against sham tests the specific effect; a trial against usual care tests the whole package. Both are valid, and they answer different questions.
Can a traditional practice be evaluated scientifically?
Yes, if its protocols are standardised and its outcomes measurable. The difficulty is that TCM individualises treatment, which conflicts with the fixed protocol a trial requires. This tension explains part of the heterogeneity, and it is a real methodological limit, not an excuse.

Frequently asked questions

Useful links

Sources

  • Vickers AJ, Vertosick EA, et al. Acupuncture for Chronic Pain: Update of an Individual Patient Data Meta-Analysis. J Pain, 2018. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29198932/ — https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29198932/
"TCM is banned in France" : what the law actually says"TCM is only for the wealthy" : what it really costs, and how to access it in Grenoble
Loading...
Ghislaine Morin
Ghislaine Morin
Praticienne en médecine traditionnelle chinoise et sophrologue à Grenoble
Catalog
0%