Determining an appropriate control for use in acupuncture research remains one of the largest methodological challenges acupuncture researchers face. In general, acupuncture controls fall under one of two categories: (1) sham acupuncture, in which the skin is punctured with real acupuncture needles either fully at nonacupoint locations or shallowly at acupoint locations or both and (2) placebo acupuncture, which utilizes nonpenetrating acupuncture devices. In this study, we will focus on non-penetrating placebo acupuncture devices (blunted-needle and nonneedle devices) that are currently available in acupuncture research. We will describe each device and discuss each device’s validation and application in previous studies. In addition, we will outline the advantages and disadvantages of these devices and highlight how the differences among placebo devices can be used to isolate distinct components of acupuncture treatment and investigate their effects. We would like to emphasize that there is no single placebo device that can serve as the best control for all acupuncture studies; the choice of an acupuncture control should be determined by the specific aim of the study.

Background: Early hematoma expansion (HE) occurs in patients with intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) within the first few hours from ICH onset. Hematoma expansion has been considered as an independent predictor of poor clinical outcome and mortality after ICH. Island sign (IS) on the non-contrast computed tomography (NCCT) appears to increase the rate of detection of HE. However, there is insufficient evidence to declare that IS is an independent predictor for ICH patients prognosis and classification. Objectives: To investigate whether IS on NCCT could predict HE and functional outcome following ICH. Methods: Major databases were systematically searched, including PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane library, and the Chinese database (CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang databases). Studies about the associations between IS and HE or IS and clinical outcome were included. The pooled result used the odds ratio (OR) with a 95% confidence interval (CI) as effect size. Heterogeneity and publication bias were assessed. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression were applied to detect potential factors of heterogeneity. Results: Eleven studies with 4,310 patients were included in the final analysis. The average incidence rate of IS and HE were 21.58 and 33%, respectively. The ideal timing for assessing HE was also not uniform or standardized. We separately performed two meta-analyses. First, 10 studies were included to estimate the association between IS and HE. The pooled OR was statistically significant (OR = 7.61, 95% CI = 3.10–18.67, P < 0.001). Second, four studies were included in the meta-analysis, and the pooled result showed that IS had a significantly positive relationship with poor outcome (OR = 3.83, 95% CI = 2.51–5.85, P < 0.001). Conclusions: This meta-analysis showed that NCCT IS is of great importance and value for evaluation of HE and poor outcome in patients with ICH. Future studies should focus on developing consensus guidelines, and more studies with large sample size and longitudinal design are needed to validate the conclusions.