目的:比较虚实辨证针刺法与常规循经刺法治疗软组织损伤的疗效差异.方法:将380例软组织损伤患者随机分为辨证组(200例,虚实辨证刺法)与循经组(180例,循经取穴刺法),观察比较两组疗效.结果:辨证组的痊愈率为86%,循经组为31.11%,差异有非常显著性意义(P＜0.01);从痊愈好转病例的总平均治疗时间比较,辨证组为8.8 d,循经组为15.6 d,差异有非常显著性意义(P＜0.01),辨证组明显优于循经组.结论:治疗软组织损伤,虚实辨证针刺法优于常规循经刺法.,Objective: To compare the therapeutic effects between the needling method by identification of deficient and excessive patts and the needling method by routine meridian differentiation in the treatment of soft tissue injuries. Methods: 380 cases of the patients with soft tissue injuries were randomly divided into patt identification group (200 cases, with the needling method by identification of deficient and excessive patts) and meridian identification group (180cases, with the needling method by routine meridian differentiation), to observe and compare the therapeutic effects in the two groups. Results: The curative effect was 86% in the patt identification group and 31.11% in the meridian identification group, with a significant difference (P＜ 0.01). In comparison with the total average treatment times in the cured and improved cases,the patt identification group was 8.8 days and the meridian identification group was 15.6 days,with a remarkable significant difference (P＜ 0.01). The patt identification group was better than the meridian identification group. Conclusion: In the treatment of soft tissue injuries, the needling method by identification of deficient and excessive patts was better than the needling method by routine meridian differentiation.