Knee Osteoarthritis; Insomnia; Cervical Spondylosis; Chronic Low Back Pain; Allergic Rhinitis

This study is the clinical validation component of a broader research program developing a randomized controlled trial (RCT) comparing sensitization acupuncture (an individualized technique in which treatment points are selected by palpation for sensitized acupoints) with traditional acupuncture (a technique using preset, fixed acupoints). To keep participants unaware of which treatment they receive, the program constructed a control design using a structured five-step framework (Deconstruct-Identify-Take out-Think-Optimize, DITTO), in which each treatment incorporates a double-simulation: in sensitization acupuncture, sensitized acupoints are needled genuinely while the preset traditional acupoints receive shallow or non-penetrating needling; in traditional acupuncture, the preset acupoints are needled genuinely while the identified sensitized acupoints receive shallow or non-penetrating needling. This study validates whether this design maintains participant blinding in practice. Thirty participants with one of five conditions (knee osteoarthritis, insomnia, cervical spondylosis, chronic low back pain, or allergic rhinitis) will each receive 10 sessions in a randomized order: 5 sessions of sensitization acupuncture and 5 sessions of traditional acupuncture. After each session, participants will guess which treatment they received, state their reasons, and rate their confidence; blinding will be evaluated using James' and Bang's Blinding Indices. Sensory experience (deqi, pain, needle-penetration perception) and adverse events will also be compared between the two treatments. Results will guide refinement of the control design before its use in the definitive RCT.