在业界具有很高影响力的美国内科年鉴于2016年9月13日在线发表了一篇中国学者的针灸治疗慢性严重功能性便秘的临床试验报告。试验有15个医院参加，共纳入千余患者，半数接受腹部传统穴位电针治疗，半数接受非穴位浅刺假电针治疗，疗程8周28次，观察20周，观察指标为毎周排便次数，属于随机单盲对照多中心试验研究。结果是接受真针灸治疗的患者比接受假针灸治疗的患者的排便次数增加大约一倍多，多数达到正常，无明显副作用，统计结果有非常显著差异。这个由中国中医科学院首席研究员、世界针灸学会联合会主席刘保延教授领衔包括20多位作者的研究团队阵容强大，也是中国内陆学者首次在此类高信誉国际学刊发表针灸试验报告，意义重大，值得祝贺。这个试验的特点是，大样本和多中心，由国家自然科学基金资助。其实，针灸能促进胃肠蠕动是针灸界人人皆知的事实，治疗动物也屡试不爽。1971年纽约时报记者赖斯顿在北京因阑尾炎术后接受针灸治疗就是为了促进术后胃肠蠕动，他曾在纽约时报发表文章说针灸有效，可惜医学界不承认个案为证据。事隔45年，中国学者终于拿出了大样本数据，证明赖斯顿没有“撒谎“。医学临床研究之严谨和艰难，由此可见一斑。
　　原文摘要/ABSTRACT：
　　Acupuncture for Chronic Constipation Ann Intern Med. 13 September 2016 Published online
Objective: To determine the efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA) for chronic severe functional constipation (CSFC).
　　Setting: 15 hospitals in China.
　　Participants: Patients with CSFC and no serious underlying pathologic cause for constipation.
Intervention: 28 sessions of EA at traditional acupoints or sham EA (SA) at nonacupoints over 8 weeks.
　　Measurements: The primary outcome was the change from baseline in mean weekly complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) during weeks 1 to 8. Participants were followed until week 20.
　　Results: 1075 patients (536 and 539 in the EA and SA groups, respectively) were enrolled. The increase from baseline in mean weekly CSBMs during weeks 1 to 8 was 1.76 (95% CI, 1.61 to 1.89) in the EA group and 0.87 (CI, 0.73 to 0.97) in the SA group (between-group difference, 0.90 [CI, 0.74 to 1.10]; P < 0.001). The change from baseline in mean weekly CSBMs during weeks 9 to 20 was 1.96 (CI, 1.78 to 2.11) in the EA group and 0.89 (CI, 0.69 to 0.95) in the SA group (between-group difference, 1.09 [CI, 0.94 to 1.31]; P < 0.001). The proportion of patients having 3 or more mean weekly CSBMs in the EA group was 31.3% and 37.7% over the treatment and follow-up periods, respectively, compared with 12.1% and 14.1% in the SA group (P <0.001). Acupuncture-related adverse events during treatment were infrequent in both groups, and all were mild or transient.
　　Limitations: Longer-term follow-up was not assessed. Acupuncturists could not be blinded.
Conclusion: Eight weeks of EA increases CSBMs and is safe for the treatment of CSFC. Additional study is warranted to evaluate a longer-term treatment and follow-up.

　　A Randomized, Controlled Trial
　　来源：Annals of Internal Medicine ORIGINAL RESEARCH
　　作者[+] Article, Author, and Disclosure Information
　　Ann Intern Med. Published online 13 September 2016 doi:10.7326/M15-3118
　　© 2016 American College of Physicians
　　中英对照：严重慢性功能性便秘(CSFC)
　　电针刺激(EA)
　　假电针刺激(SA)
　　自发的排便(CSBMs)
　　生活质量问卷(PAC-QOL)
　　Background: Acupuncture has been used for chronic constipation,but evidence for its effectiveness remains scarce.
　　Objective: To determine the efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA) for chronic severe functional constipation (CSFC).
　　Design: Randomized, parallel, sham-controlled trial.
　　背景:针灸疗法已用于慢性便秘,但证明其有效性的证据仍然稀缺。
　　目的:确定电针刺激(EA)对严重慢性功能性便秘(CSFC)的疗效。
　　设计:随机、平行、假对照试验。
　　Setting: 15 hospitals in China.Participants: Patients with CSFC and no serious underlying pathologic cause for constipation.
　　Intervention: 28 sessions of EA at traditional acupoints or sham EA (SA) at nonacupoints over 8 weeks.
　　Measurements: The primary outcome was the change from baseline in mean weekly complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) during weeks 1 to 8. Participants were followed until 　　　week 20
　　Results: 1075 patients (536 and 539 in the EA and SA groups, respectively) were enrolled.
　　在中国的15家医院:CSFC患者没有严重的基础病理原因性便秘。
　　干预:28期患者在传统穴位或在非穴位处进行假电针8周。
　　测量:在第一周到第八周，参与者平均每周完成自发的排便(CSBMs)为主要结果做成变化基线，一直持续了20周。
　　结果:1075例患者(536例和539例在EA和SA组)注册参与实验。
　　The change from baseline in mean weekly CSBMs during weeks 9 to 20 was 1.96 (CI, 1.78 to 2.11) in the EA group and 0.89 (CI, 0.69 to 0.95) in the SA group (between-group difference,. The proportion of patients having 3 or more mean weekly CSBMs in the EA group was 31.3% and 37.7% over the treatment and follow-up periods, respectively, compared with 12.1% and 14.1% in the SA group (P < 0.001).
　　基线的改变意味着每周CSBMs在第9到20周EA组为1.96和SA组为0.89。患者的比例在3:1或更多，意味着每周CSBMs EA组为31.3%,37.7%的治疗和随访时间,分别与SA组的12.2%和14.1%相比。
　　Limitations: Longer-term follow-up was not assessed. Acupuncturists could not be blinded.
Conclusion: Eight weeks of EA increases CSBMs and is safe forthe treatment of CSFC. Additional study is warranted to evaluate a longer-term treatment and follow-up.
Primary Funding Source: Ministry of Science and Technology of the People's Republic of China through the Twelfth Five-Year National Science and Technology Pillar Program.
　　限制:无法长期随访评估。针灸治疗师知道治疗的分配情况。
　　结论:八周的EA治疗是安全的。对于一个长期的治疗和随访额外的评估研究是必要的。
　　主要资金来源:科技部中华人民共和国第十二个五年国家科学和技术支柱项目。
　　Chronic constipation affects approximately 16% of the world's population (1), 17.1% of persons in Europe (2), 12% to 19% of those in North America (3), and 10.8% of those in Asia (1). Patients with severe chronic constipation have complete spontaneous bowel movements (CSBMs) no more than twice per week, with hard stools, frequent straining, and the sensation of incomplete evacuation . Most chronic constipation is functional and is associated with decreased quality of life
　　慢性便秘会影响大约16%的世界人口：(1),有17.1%的欧洲人，(2)12%到19%的北美患者(3),和10.8%的患者在亚洲。严重的慢性便秘患者完全自发的排便(CSBMs)每周不超过两次,与凳子使用困难,频繁的紧张和不完整的感觉有关。大多数慢性功能性便秘病人与生活质量有所下降。
　　Laxatives produce only temporary relief, and constipation tends to reoccur after discontinuing medication . Nearly half of patients are dissatisfied with their traditional therapies, such as laxatives .Other treatment options may include prokinetic agents.In a trial, 1 to 2 mg of prucalopride an agonist for 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor 4) per day was reported to normalize BMs in 37.9% of patients with severe chronic constipation . However, the adverse cardiac effects induced by some prokinetic agents cannot be ignored , and their long-term effects remain unknown
　　泻药只能暂时缓解便秘，中断药物治疗后会重新出现。近一半的患者不满意于传统的治疗方法,比如泻药。其他治疗方案可能包括促动力药替代治疗。在一个试验中,1 - 2毫克的prucalopride(一种兴奋剂5 -羟色胺受体4)每天报道规范化灼口综合征(BMS)37.9%的严重慢性便秘(9)。然而,促动力药替代治疗引起的一些不良心脏效应不能忽略(10),他们的长期影响依然是未知的。
　　A systematic review supports the use of acupuncture for chronic constipation (11), and our previous study indicates that electroacupuncture (EA) might
have some sustained effects . However, the evidence for the therapeutic effects of acupuncture is limited because many randomized, controlled trials have had small sample sizes or other methodological limitations.
　　系统回顾支持使用针灸慢性便秘,我们之前的研究表明,电针刺激(EA)有持续效果。然而,证明针灸的治疗效果是有限的，因为许多随机、对照试验有样本大小或其他方法的局限性。
　　Our goal was to determine the efficacy of EA for the treatment of chronic severe functional constipation (CSFC) over an 8-week treatment period and evaluate the maintenance of effects throughout the 12-week follow-up. We hypothesized that EA would be superior to sham EA (SA) at both end points.
　　我们的目标是确定EA治疗严重慢性功能性便秘(CSFC)的功效。为期8周的治疗期和评估期12周的效果维护情况随访。我们推测,EA会在两个方面优越于假EA治疗(SA)。
　　METHODS
　　Design Overview ：We conducted a multicenter, randomized, parallel, sham-controlled trial at 15 sites in China. The study durationper patient was 22 weeks: 2 weeks before randomization(baseline assessment); 8 weeks of treatment;and 12 weeks of follow-up without treatment.Researchers screened candidates for study participation,and experienced physicians at digestive or anorectal departments made diagnoses.
　　方法
　　设计概述：我们在中国的15家医院进行了一项多中心、随机、平行,假对照试验。这项研究持续时间每个病人是22周:随机化前2周(基线评估);治疗8周;12周没有治疗的跟踪随访。研究人员筛选候选人参与学习,并和经验丰富的医生在消化或肛门直肠的部门作出诊断。
　　Participants
　　Participants were included if they met the diagnosis of functional constipation based on the Rome III diagnostic criteria for functional gastrointestinal disorders , had CSFC with 2 or fewer mean weekly CSBMs for more than 3 months, were aged between 18 and 75 years, had not taken constipation medication for a minimum of 2 weeks before enrollment except for rescue medicine (glycerol or sorbitol anal enema), had not received acupuncture for constipation, and had not participated in any other trial in the previous 3 months.
　　参与者
　　参与者包括遇到的根据罗马III诊断功能性便秘功能性胃肠疾病的标准的患者,有CSFC 2或更少意味着每周CSBMs超过3个月,年龄在18岁和75岁之间,没有便秘使用药物。至少试验前的2周，除了救援医学(甘油或山梨糖醇肛门灌肠),尚未接受针灸对便秘的治疗,而且之前的3个月没有参加在任何其他治疗。
　　The exclusion criteria：constipation caused by irritable bowel syndrome or drugs or that was secondary to endocrine, metabolic, neurologic, or postoperative diseases; severe cardiovascular, hepatic, or renal diseases;cognitive dysfunction, aphasia, mental disorders, or illness that could affect patient cooperation; pregnant or lactating women; abdominal aortic aneurysm or hepatosplenomegaly; blood coagulation disorders or regular anticoagulant use, including warfarin or heparin; and cardiac pacemaker implantation.
　　排除标准：便秘引起的烦躁肠道综合症或药物或辅助内分泌,代谢、神经或术后疾病;严重的心血管、肝或肾脏疾病;认知功能障碍、失语、精神障碍,或的疾病,可能会影响病人合作;怀孕了或哺乳期妇女;腹主动脉瘤或肝脾肿大;凝血障碍或常规抗凝剂使用,包括华法林或肝素;和心脏起搏器植入术。
　　Randomization and Blinding
　　Acupuncturists obtained each patient's random number and assignment through the central randomization system (Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences). All participants were treated separately to prevent communication. Except for acupuncturists, all relevant parties were blinded to the intervention (EA vs SA) groups
　　随机化和致盲
　　针灸师获得每个病人的随机数并通过中央随机系统的任务。所有的参与者是分开治疗,防止互相间的通信。除了针灸师,还有各方被蒙蔽的干预(EA和SA)组患者参加治疗。
Participants were informed that they had an equal chance of allocation to the EA or SA group before study participation. To test the success of blinding, we randomly selected 140 participants (70 from each group, with 9 to 10 participants at each site) for the blinding assessment; the acupuncturists asked them to guess whether they received EA or SA after treatments in weeks 4 and 8
　　参与者被告知,他们有一个平等的EA或SA组分配的机会。我们测试目的成功,随机选择140名参与者(70从每个组,9到10参与者在每个站点上)項目的评估,针灸师要求他们猜测他们是否會在第四周和第八周受到EA或SA治疗。
　　Intervention
Study interventions were developed by the consensus of acupuncture experts and per the results of our pilot study (Cai Y, Wu J, Liu Z. Electroacupunctureversus sham electroacupuncture for chronic severe functional constipation: a randomized controlled pilot study. 2012. Unpublished data.). Fifteen acupuncturists with 2 to 3 years of experience at the 15 sites administered the EA and SA treatments
　　干预
　　研究干预措施被开发是针灸专家的共识和讨论討論的结果。我们的初步研究(电针刺激与假电针刺激对慢性严重功能性便秘:随机对照试验研究。在2012年，未公开的数据)，15个针灸师根据2到3年的经验在15个站点管理EA和SA)进行治疗。
Both treatments consisted of 28 sessions, each for 30minutes, and were administered over 8 weeks . Disposable needles (Huatuo) and the SDZ-V EA apparatus (Suzhou Medical Appliance) were used.
　　两种治疗方法包括28次,每次30 分钟,八周治疗时间。使用一次性针头(Huatuo)和SDZ-V EA仪器。
　　Participants in the EA group received EA at the bilateral acupoints of Tianshu (ST25), Fujie (SP14), and Shangjuxu (ST37) (15). When participants were supine,  0.30 × 50–mm or 0.35 × 75–mm needles were inserted approximately 30 to 70 mm into ST25 and SP14 slowly and vertically, without manipulation, until they pierced the muscle layer of the abdominal wall. Paired alligator
clips from the EA apparatus were attached transversely to the needle holders at bilateral ST25 and SP14.
　　EA组的参与者在身体双边穴位取天枢(ST25),腹结(SP14)上巨虚 (ST37)。参与者仰卧位时,0.30×50毫米或0.35×75毫米针头插入大约30到70毫米到天枢和腹结，缓慢和垂直方向上,没有手法操作,直到他们穿腹壁的肌肉层。成对的EA装置横向附加在双侧穴位上。
The EA stimulation lasted for 30 minutes with a dilatational wave of 10/50 Hz and a current intensity of 0.1 to 1 mA depending on the participant's comfort level (preferably with skin around the acupoints shivering mildly without pain). In addition, 0.30 × 40–mm needles were inserted vertically about 30 mm into ST37 and 3 small, equal manipulations of twirling, lifting, and thrusting (once every 10 minutes) were performed to reach acupuncture de qi—a soreness, heaviness, and distension sensation when needling.
　　EA膨胀刺激持续了30分钟，波长10/50 Hz和电流强度为0.1比1，根据参与者的舒适度(最好与穴位皮肤颤抖的温和没有痛苦)。此外,0.30×40毫米的针头垂直大约30毫米插入上巨虚ST37,相同操作的旋转、提升和抽插(每10分钟一次)进行针灸，当针刺时产生酸痛、沉重和膨胀感觉。
　　Participants in the SA group received shallow needlingat bilateral sham ST25, sham SP14, and sham ST37 (nonacupoints that were located at different physical locations than ST25, SP14, and ST37 for EA) (Supplement,available at www.annals.org).
　　参与者的SA组在双边天枢，腹结，上巨虚附近非穴位，于不同的物理位置浅刺。
　　needles were inserted vertically about 3 to 5 mm into nonacupoints without manipulation. Similar to EA, paired alligator clips from the specially constructed EA apparatus were attached to the needle holders of sham ST25 and sham SP14. When switchedon, the EA apparatus in the SA group had the same working power indicator and sound without actual current output.
　　具体来说,0.30×25毫米的针头插入垂直约3 5毫米的非穴位，没有手法。类似的EA连接到患者的假穴位。当切换电源，与EA 类似的SA组时有相同的设备工作电源指示器和声音没有实际电流输出。
　　In both groups, participants without BMs for 3 or more consecutive days were allowed to use 110-mL glycerol or 40- to 60-mL sorbitol anal enema as rescue medicine with documentation in the stool diary. Outcomes and Follow-up。
　　在两组中,参与者没有被允许使用110毫升甘油或40 - 60毫升山梨糖醇肛门灌肠措施。
　　Participants completed a stool diary during the 22-week study period and the Patient Assessment of ConstipationQuality of Life questionnaire (PAC-QOL) at baseline and weeks 4 and 8. The main components of the stool diary included BMs, SBMs, CSBMs, stool consistency, straining, and medication use. Participants documented their stool consistency according to the Bristol Stool Form Scale (scored from 1 to 7 for stool types 1 to 7, respectively). Straining was rated with scores of 0, 1, 2, and 3 indicating not difficult;a little difficult, need some straining to defecate; difficult, need straining to defecate; and very difficult, need hard straining to defecate, respectively. An SBM was defined as a BM that occurred without use of any medication or other methods to assist defecation in the previous 24 hours .
　　结果和随访
　　参与者在22 周研究期间完便秘病人评估生活质量问卷(PAC-QOL)。在第四周和第八周基线中显示，粪便日志包括了BMs,CSBMs,大便性状、紧张和药物使用。参与者根据记录他们的布里斯托大便形状(得分从1级至7级刻度表上大便类型1到7)。紧张被评为得分为0、1、2和3显示不困难，有点难度,需要一些用力排便,困难,需要用力排便,非常困难,需要努力分别竭力便。一个没有使用任何药物或发生的BM其他方法来帮助排便前24小时。
　　A BM was not considered as an SBM when it occurred within 24 hours after the use of any assisted method for defecation. The PAC-QOL allowed participants to score the effects of constipation on physical discomfort, psychosocial discomfort, worriedness and concerns, and satisfaction in their daily lives. Higher scores indicate greater impairment or dissatisfaction
　　BM不是视为一个发生后24小时内使用任何辅助排便的方法。PAC-QOL允许参与者记录便秘对身体的影响不适,心理不适等变化在日常生活中的问题。更高的分数表示更大的障碍或不满。
　　the proportion of participants using rescue medicine and other defecation measures; and the mean weekly frequency of using rescue medicine and other defecation aids during weeks 1to 4, 1 to 8, and 9 to 20. We also assessed the CSBMs per week and their change from baseline during treatment and follow-up 。
　　测开始到后续量参与者使用救援医学和其他排便措施的比例;及平均每周使用救援医学和其他排便频率艾滋病在1到4周,1 - 8周和9 - 20周。我们也评估了CSBMs每周和他们的治疗和随访期间从。
　　Severe AEs had to be reported to the principal investigator and the independent data and safety monitoring board (Supplement Table 1) within 24 hours after their occurrence.
　　电针刺激和虚假的电针刺激对慢性功能性便秘严重:随机对照试验研究
　　RESULTS
　　Participant Flow
　　Between 8 October 2012 and 4 May 2014, there were 1712 patients screened from 15 sites. After 637 patients were excluded, 1075 (last recruited on 4 May 2014) were enrolled: 536 in the EA group and 539 in the SA group. A total of 54 (5.0%) patients dropped out during the study: 21 (3.9%) in the EA group and 33 (6.1%) in the SA group (Figure 1).
　　结果
　　2012年10月8日至2014年5月4日,有1712名患者来自15个网站的筛选参与。之后,637名患者被排除在外,637名(去年招募了2014年5月4日)为:EA组有536人和539 SA组。共有54例(5.0%)患者退出研究中:EA组21例(3.9%)和33 SA组(6.1%)(图1)。

　　Over the 8-week treatment, the EA group had greater improvement in mean SBMs per week, stool consistency and straining.
　　治疗8周后,EA组在每周粪便一致性和紧张感上有更大的改善。
　　DISCUSSION
　　This multicenter trial with 1075 participants showed that EA alleviated symptoms and improved quality of life in patients with CSFC during the 8-week treatment; these effects persisted throughout the 12-week followup. Thus, EA might be recommended as a valuable and promising new therapeutic option for patients with CSFC.
　　讨论
　　这个多中心试验1有075名参与者。表明了EA可以缓解症状和改善患者的生活质量。CSFC患者在8周治疗中的影响持续整个12周的跟踪。因此,EA可能建议作为一个有价值的和有前途的新的CSFC患者治疗的选择。

　　The main physiopathologic mechanism of SFC is insufficient bowel motility . Previous basic research reported that acupuncture stimulation facilitates gastro-intestinal motility. The distal colon is stimulated via parasympathetic activation at acupoints ST25, SP14, and ST37.
　　香港证监会的主要病生理机制是肠蠕动缓慢。以前的基础研究报道,针灸刺激促进肠道蠕动。在刺激天枢，腹结，上巨虚穴时，远端结肠通过副交感神经激活。
 　　A 1-unit increase in mean CSBMs per week has been considered clinically meaningful for the relief of severe constipation and indicates enhanced general well-being.
　　每周增加1单位意味着CSBMs一直被认为有临床意义的缓解严重的便秘,表明提高了患者的幸福指数。
　　our results show that EA may normalize bowel function in some patients.
　　我们的研究结果表明,EA可能使一些病人肠功能正常化。
　　Therapeutic efficacy of EA for severe constipation is further supported by increased weekly SBMs, improved stool consistency, less defecation straining, lower PAC-QOLscore, and less frequent rescue medicine use (during
treatment).
　　治疗效果严重便秘的EA进一步支持增加，在改善粪便一致性,减少排便紧张,PAC-QOL score在救援医学使用治疗方面。
　　Our results may thus add to the evidence that EA improves general well-being and quality of life in patients. In addition, we searched for randomized, controlled trials in PubMed from 1 January 2010 to February 2016 using the keywords “acupuncture” and“constipation” in the abstract and title screening and identified 4 suitable publications. These 4 clinical trials (each with sample size of 128, 475, 111, and 104 participants) reported similar findings of EA in relieving functional constipation, although none used the outcomes of CSBMs and PAC-QOL score for constipation evaluation.
　　因此,我们的结果可以能增加的证据表明,EA提高幸福指数和患者的生活质量和幸福指数。此外,我们搜索的随机对照试验在PubMed从2010年1月1日到2016年2月，使用关键字“灸”和“便秘”的摘要和标题筛选和确定合适的出版物。这四个临床试验(每个样本容量为128,128,475,和104名参与者)的结论相似，EA缓解功能性便秘,虽然CSBMs和PAC-QOL评分的结果用于便秘评价。

　　To improve blinding and participant adherence, we used shallow needling at nonacupoints as the control. Although an ideal acupuncture placebo would be
noninvasive, acupuncture blinding with Chinese participants is difficult if they do not perceive any needling during treatment.
　　我们使用浅针刺在非穴位可以起到安慰剂的作用。
　　Our results revealed that EA might have greater benefits than SA for CSFC, which is consistent with prior studies for gastrointestinal symptoms using shallow needling at nonacupoints (control) that showed EA's superiority over SA。
我们的研究结果显示,EA 比SA也许会有更大的益处,这对于胃肠道症状与之前的研究一致。
　　These results are similar to those reported in a previous acupuncture study . Our study provided additional reassurance of the safety of acupuncture in the treatmentof CSFC. Our study has several limitations. Longer-term follow-up has not been assessed. Our EA treatment session was based on expert consensus in China; however, 28 sessions of EA may be burdensome for some patients
　　这些结果与以前的针灸的一项研究报告。我们的研究提供了额外的保障安全的在用CSFC针灸。我们的研究也有一些局限性。长期随访未评估。基于我们的EA治疗在中国专家共识;然而,28期EA可能对有些病人产生负担。
　　In conclusion, we found that 8-week EA treatment increased CSBMs and was safe for the treatment of CSFC. The effect persisted for 12 weeks after treatment.
　　该研究共包括1075例患者(EA组536例，SA组539例)。在1至8周过程中，EA组患者从基线至每周CSBMs变化增加了1.76次(95%CI，1.61至1.89)，SA组平均增加了0.87次(CI，0.73至0.97)(组间差异，0.90[CI，0.74至1.10]; P<0.001)。在9至20周时，EA组平均每周CSBMs变化增加了1.96次(CI，1.78至2.11)，SA组平均增加了0.89次(CI，0.69至0.95)(组间差异，1.09[CI，0.94 1.31]; P<0.001)。在治疗和随访期间，EA组平均每周有三次或以上的CSBMs患者比例为31.3%至37.7%，而SA组只有12.1%至14.1%的患者每周有三次或以上的CSBMs(P<0.001)。两组在治疗期间针灸相关的不良事件比较少见，均为轻度或短暂的。
结论,我们发现8周EA治疗增加CSBMs和CSFC的治疗是安全的。效果可以持续到12周治疗后。而且接受真针灸治疗的患者比接受假针灸治疗的患者的排便次数增加大约一倍多，多数达到正常，无明显副作用，统计结果有非常显著差异。