SHAM CONTROLS IN ACUPRESSURE STUDIES - READING CHECKLIST
Original research-literacy worksheet, not a treatment recommendation.
Use "not reported" when information is missing. Do not guess.

Paper title and link:
Publication year:
Population and care setting:
Primary research aim:
Number allocated to each group:
Actual selected-pressure procedure:
Actual sham procedure:
What usual care includes, if present:
Location difference between groups:
Pressure or device difference:
Practice time and instructions:
Researcher contact and reminders:
Other care received:
How allocation was generated:
How upcoming allocation was concealed:
Participants masked? How?
Providers masked? How?
Outcome assessors masked? How?
Analysts masked? How?
Credibility or group-guess assessment, if reported:
Outcome and measurement time:
Is the outcome self-reported?
Between-group comparison reported:
Uncertainty and important study limits:
Dropout and adherence information:
The narrowest conclusion I can support:
What this study cannot establish:

Reading checks:
- A "sham" label does not specify the actual procedure.
- Random allocation, allocation concealment and masking differ.
- Improvement inside both groups does not establish superiority.
- No statistically significant difference does not prove equivalence.
- A usual-care contrast can include attention and practice differences.
- Do not transfer results to other conditions or needle acupuncture.
This worksheet has no validated score and does not grade treatment quality.