ArticleBMJ open2015
'Big needles, small bodies'-the absence of acupuncture treatment for infants in contemporary Shanghai: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Acupuncture Treatment for Nocturnal Crying in Pediatric Patients: A Systematic Review of Clinical Studies.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- Acupuncture treatments for infantile colic: a systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis of blinding test validated randomised controlled trials.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2018Pooled it
- Tiny needles, major benefits: acupuncture in child health.BMC pediatrics · 2025Article
- An overview of systematic reviews of complementary and alternative therapies for infantile colic.Systematic reviews · 2019Review
- Auricular Medicine in Neonatal Care.Medical acupuncture · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo explore contemporary practices and clinical recommendations regarding the use of acupuncture for infants by Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) practitioners in Shanghai.
designA qualitative study consisting of four field visits between February 2014 and March 2015. Data was collected using participant observation, focus group interview, in-depth interview, textbook page analysis and informant validation.
participants14 Shanghainese professionals, including interpreters and TCM practitioners, of which seven were acupuncturists.
settingThe Longhua Hospital (paediatric, acupuncture and Tui na departments) in southern Shanghai and the campus of the Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
resultsThe Longhua Hospital outpatient acupuncture clinic receives 400 consultations on average per day. Children, including patients from the paediatric department, are referred to this clinic. During 3 days of participant observations at this department, we saw two children. No infants. During 3 days at the paediatric department and 1 day at the Tui na department we saw no referrals. Formal interviews and informal conversations with acupuncturists and other TCM professionals revealed that acupuncture was neither routinely practiced nor recommended for infants and small children. Acupuncture was considered potentially painful for this young patient population. Alternative treatment options such as herbal treatments or medical massage were widely available and preferred. Western medical diagnostics and treatment were also used, recommended, and trusted.
conclusionsAcupuncture for infants is not a preferred therapeutic method among TCM practitioners working in contemporary Shanghai. Acupuncture on broad indications in infants appears to be a Western practice with little basis in TCM modern-day practice.
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.