Abstract
ABSTRACT
Three basic classes of acupuncture points are described: the 361 classical (“channel”) acupoints, extra (extraordinary) points that are almost always off-channel, and Ah Shi local tender points. The classical acupuncture points are the oldest and most clinically important points. Their locations, as well as those of the extra points, have traditionally been described and taught using the Chinese “cun” measurement system, 1 cun being defined as the width of the interphalangeal joint of the thumb.
Recent research demonstrates that the use of the traditional cun method to find acupuncture points is inaccurate and may lead acupuncturists to needle sites that are as far as 2 cm away from these points' actual (true) locations. Although acupuncture clinical trials in the past 2 decades have demonstrated improved reporting of the acupuncture points selected, needling techniques, and modes of needle stimulation, their methodologies do not address a fundamental issue raised by these point location studies: were the proper acupuncture point locations needled in those clinical trials? Inaccurate point localization may produce negative or suboptimal acupuncture intervention outcomes that result in type II statistical errors and may explain a portion of the outcome variability seen in acupuncture clinical trials.
A best-practices description of optimal acupuncture point localization based on acupuncture references and recent research is presented in this article. The implications of optimal point location for clinical practice, training, and acupuncture research are described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.