Trial reportCNS neuroscience & therapeutics2012
Acupuncture for depression: exploring model validity and the related issue of credibility in the context of designing a pragmatic trial.
Trial report in CNS neuroscience & therapeutics, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Psychological therapies for treatment-resistant depression in adults.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2018Pooled it
- Establishment of depression behavioral criteria in cynomolgus monkeys.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2013Article
- Stop, Listen, and Learn: Using Mixed Methods to Add Value to Clinical Trials.Journal of evidence-based integrative medicineArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionEvaluating care that is not credible to its practitioners or patients will result in a gap between evidence and practice and the potential value, or harm, of the intervention may be underestimated. Our aim was to develop a pragmatic trial that would have better model validity and credibility than trials to date in this clinical area.
methodsIn-depth interviews; a nominal consensus technique and five arm pilot trial conducted in UK primary care using counseling and usual general practitioner (GP) care as comparisons for acupuncture.
findingsPatients with long standing, severe illness that had not responded, or partially responded to conventional treatments may be interested in using acupuncture and participating in a trial. Using a database method to recruit, pilot trial patients were mostly severely depressed (87.5%); chronically ill (60% with 3+ previous episodes), with high levels of comorbidity, and medication use. Acupuncture was as credible to pilot trial participants as usual GP care and more credible than counseling: most patients (62.5%) preferred to be allocated to acupuncture, rating it more highly at baseline than counseling or usual GP care as potentially able to benefit their depression (P = 0.002). Disparities were identified in the working models of acupuncturists and counselors that suggest inherent differences between interventions in terms of the process and intended potential outcomes of therapy, as well as the interaction between patients and therapists.
conclusionThe Medical Research Council (MRC) framework with its phased, mixed method approach has helped to develop research that has better model validity than trials to date in this field. The next phase of research will need to involve acupuncture and counseling practitioners to help researchers to develop realistic and credible care packages for a full-scale trial, where patients are likely to be severely and chronically ill.
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.