On the Impossibility of Trigger Point–Acupoint Equivalence: A Commentary on Peter Dorsher's Analysis
Abstract
EDITORIAL On the Impossibility of Trigger PointâAcupoint Equivalence: A Commentary on Peter Dorsherâs Analysis STEPHEN BIRCH, Ph.D., Lic.Ac.(U.S.), M.B.Ac.C.(U.K.) S ix (6) years after Melzack, Stillwell, and Fox1 published their landmark article claiming to have demonstrated that acupuncture points and trigger points correlate and are essentially the same thing, the parents of trigger point therapy, Travell and Simons,2 wrote the first text on trigger points. They analyzed the Melzack et al. study and concluded: â[A]cupuncture points and trigger points are derived from vastly different concepts. The fact that a number of pain points overlap does not change that basic difference. The two terms should not be used interchangeablyâ (page 21). I would like to thank Dr. Dorsher for his interesting paper (pp. 353â359). He has done a good job documenting that the needling of trigger points may be useful in the treatment of pain. He has also shown the superficial similarities of the needling of trigger points and acupuncture points, but he has failed to provide any convincing evidence that acupuncture points are correlated with trigger points. I do not deny that trigger point needling is an effective therapy for pain (though I suspect its clinical trial evidence