ArticleJournal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.)2013
Review of Cochrane reviews on acupuncture: how Chinese resources contribute to Cochrane reviews.
Article in Journal of alternative and complementary medicine (New York, N.Y.), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- The relationship of publication language, study population, risk of bias, and treatment effects in acupuncture related systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiologic study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Should we search Chinese biomedical databases when performing systematic reviews?Systematic reviews · 2015Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochrane Systematic Reviews (CSRs) are frequently referenced by acupuncture efficacy studies currently. In this study, the CSRs on acupuncture are reviewed, and the disease fields they covered and the conclusions they reached are analyzed. In order to explore the potential contribution to CSRs by Chinese resources, the authors analyzed whether the participation of Chinese reviewers, the utilization of Chinese databases, and the inclusion of Chinese clinical trials would affect the positive conclusion ratios of the CSRs.
methodsAcupuncture-related CSRs in the Cochrane Library were searched and classified based on the International Classification of Diseases-10 (ICD-10). The CSRs were further designated as positive or negative according to the conclusion statements. CSRs with the participation of Chinese reviewers, the utilization of Chinese databases, or the inclusion of Chinese clinical trials were extracted, and the positive ratios of conclusions were compared separately with corresponding CSRs without those three Chinese resources.
resultsThirty-two (32) CSRs were identified, 9 (28.1%) of which reached positive conclusions. The CSRs with positive conclusions were mainly about multifarious pains, nausea and vomiting, and functional disorders. Seventeen (17; 53.1%) included the participation of Chinese reviewers, 18 (56.3%) involved the utilization of Chinese databases, and 20 (62.5%) included Chinese clinical trials. No differences on the positive conclusion ratios were observed between CSRs with reviewers from Chinese institutions and those that did not (odds ratio [OR]: 0.32, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.06, 1.62), the utilization of Chinese databases and those that did not (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.11, 2.44), or the inclusion of Chinese clinical trials and those that did not (OR: 1.29, 95% CI: 0.26, 6.49).
conclusionsMost CSRs on acupuncture are inconclusive. No significant differences regarding the positive conclusion ratios were found between the CSRs with or without the utilization of Chinese resources.
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.