ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2015
Analysis and Thoughts about the Negative Results of International Clinical Trials on Acupuncture.
Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for depression: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Research in nursing & health · 2023Pooled it
- The role of non-invasive ventilation used immediately after planned extubation for adults with chronic respiratory disorders.Saudi medical journal · 2018Pooled it
- Practitioners' perspectives on acupuncture treatment for postpartum depression: A qualitative study.PloS one · 2023Article
- Is acupuncture dose dependent? Ramifications of acupuncture treatment dose within clinical practice and trials.Integrative medicine research · 2020Article
- Management strategies for the treatment and prevention of postoperative/postdischarge nausea and vomiting: an updated review.F1000Research · 2020Review
- Is sham acupuncture as effective as traditional Chinese acupuncture? It's too early to say.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2016Review
- Comment on "Analysis and Thoughts about the Negative Results of International Clinical Trials on Acupuncture".Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 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
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture have proved the clinical benefits of acupuncture; however, there are some results that have shown negative results or placebo effects. The paper carried out an in-depth analysis on 33 RCTs in the 2011 SCI database, the quality of the reports was judged according to Jadad scores, and the "Necessary Information Included in Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA 2010)" was taken as the standard to analyze the rationality of the therapeutic principle. The difference between the methodology (Jadad) scores of the two types of research reports did not constitute statistical significance (P > 0.05). The studies with negative results or placebo effects showed the following deficiencies with respect to intervention details: (1) incompletely rational acupoint selection; (2) inconsistent ability of acupuncturists; (3) negligible needling response to needling; (4) acupuncture treatment frequency too low in most studies; and (5) irrational setting of placebo control. Thus, the primary basis for the negative results or placebo effects of international clinical trials on acupuncture is not in the quality of the methodology, but in noncompliance with the essential requirements proposed by acupuncture theory in terms of clinical manipulation details.
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.