Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21359916›Full record

ReviewChinese journal of integrative medicine2011

Clinical research on acupuncture - Concepts and guidance on efficacy and effectiveness research.

Claudia M Witt

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. The status of acupuncture and oriental medicine in the United States.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2014
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Acupuncture: a paradigm of worldwide cross-cultural communication.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2011
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Claudia M WittInstitute for Social Medicine, Epidemiology and Health Economics, Charité University Medical Center, 10098, Berlin, Germany, claudia.witt@charite.de

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Over the last few years a number of large acupuncture trials have been carried out in western countries. carried out in western countries. The following article draws on the experience from these recent large-scale trials on acupuncture to outline the way randomized trials could be used to answer questions on efficacy, effectiveness and efficiency. It will provide guidance, firstly on the underlying concepts of both efficacy and effectiveness and secondly on designing both types of trials. In addition, the controversy over specific and non-specific effects of acupuncture, emerging from the results of the above-mentioned trials, will be highlighted. Suggestions for future clinical research on acupuncture include: greater reflection on the complex approach of Chinese medicine, and transparent and detailed reporting according to CONSORT and STRICTA guidelines. The current data on acupuncture point-specific effects do indeed have relevance, however for valid decision-making on acupuncture, further clinical trials on effectiveness and cost-effectiveness are required to provide realistic benefit estimates for future health care.

Indexed as

AcupunctureAcupuncture TherapyBiomedical ResearchClinical Trials as TopicConcept FormationEfficiencyHumansModels, BiologicalResearch DesignTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.