Trial reportSchmerz (Berlin, Germany)2010
[Laser acupuncture for chronic back pain. A double-blind clinical study].
Trial report in Schmerz (Berlin, Germany), 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Low-level laser therapy for chronic non-specific low back pain: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society · 2016Pooled it
- The effect of journal impact factor, reporting conflicts, and reporting funding sources, on standardized effect sizes in back pain trials: a systematic review and meta-regression.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2015Pooled it
- Low-dose laser acupuncture for non-specific chronic low back pain: a double-blind randomised controlled trial.Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society · 2014Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe goal of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of laser acupuncture for the clinical picture of chronic back pain under everyday conditions using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study design. A further aim was to analyze to what extent placebo effects also influence the outcome of acupuncture under these conditions. PATIENTS AND
methodsThe study included male and female patients with chronic back pain (lasting longer than 6 months) aged between 30 and 77 years with a pain score of at least 5 on a visual analog scale. The main criterion was achieving alleviation of pain by at least 50% 3 months after the start of treatment. The assessment tools used were the Von Korff questionnaire supplemented by the FFbH, FABQ, and SF-12. In addition, the participants were questioned about whether they perceived anything during the treatment and how certain they were that they had received treatment with active or inactive lasers.
resultsA total of 111 patients were included in the study and were treated according to the randomization list in two groups each consisting of 51 subjects. The study was completed as scheduled by 102 participants. Analysis of the primary outcome measure, improvement of the pain score by more than 50% over baseline, revealed improvements in both treatment groups between the time points used for measurement. The placebo group exhibited better levels than the group that received laser treatment. No efficacy advantage of laser acupuncture over placebo treatment could be determined.
conclusionIt was possible to completely blind the acupuncture forms with the study design employed. Perhaps the consistent exclusion of nonspecific treatment effects contributed to this result. It cannot be ruled out that the effects of acupuncture are based on a strong placebo effect.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.