Clinical Studies with sham acupuncture

This author (Rachel Peterman, a student at NYCTCM) believes that the "sham" acupuncture (non-specific needling), would also have the tendency to stimulate Qi (albeit not as effectively as well-placed and executed needling), therefore the acupuncture treatments would appear to provide less clinically significant benefits, as opposed to studies where acupuncture is compared with a "pure" control group.  "Sham" acupuncture is not analogous to placebo.  "Sham" acupuncture is more analogous to giving a half dose of medication.  A drug would not appear to be as efficacious if it was compared to a half-dose, that's why a placebo, with no pharmacologic activity is used as a control in pharmaceutical clinical trials.  A proper control in an acupuncture study would involve no actual needling and consequently no stimulation of Qi. 

It is unclear whether "sham" acupuncture has been implemented in some studies in order to intentionally skew the results of the statistical analysis, or whether it merely reflects an ill-considered and fatally flawed study design.  It is also significant that the study does not provide the exact acupuncture points used in each study, although the authors admit that there was not consistency between the studies.  The usual criterion for meta-analysis is that the studies be identical or extremely close to identical in design.  It is impossible to determine, based upon the information disclosed in this analysis, whether the studies were appropriate for meta-analysis.