Trial reportBMC complementary and alternative medicine2016
Evaluating validity of various acupuncture device types: a random sequence clinical trial.
Trial report in BMC complementary and alternative medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A systematic review of sham acupuncture validation studies.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Pooled it
- Efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture in acute decompensated heart failure: a study protocol for a randomized, patient- and assessor-blinded, sham controlled trial.BMC complementary and alternative medicine · 2017Trial
- Descriptions of sham acupuncture in randomised controlled trials: a critical review of the literature.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2023Review
- Study on the Evaluation of Various Types of Sham Acupuncture Treatments in Hemiplegic Stroke Patients: The Protocol of a Randomized Clinical Trial.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAlthough various placebo acupuncture devices have been developed and used in acupuncture research, there is controversy concerning whether these devices really serve as appropriate placebos for control groups. METHODS/
designThe proposed study is a single-center prospective random sequence participant- and assessor-blinded trial with two parallel arms. A total of 76 participants will be randomly assigned to Group 1 or Group 2 in a 1:1 ratio. Group 1 will consist of Sham Streitberger's needle, Real Streitberger's needle, and Phantom acupuncture session. Group 2 will consist of Park Sham device with real needle, Park Sham device with sham needle, and no treatment session. Participants will have a total of three acupuncture sessions in a day. The primary endpoint is blinding test questionnaire 1. Secondary endpoints are the Bang's blinding index, the Massachusetts General Hospital Acupuncture Sensation Scale index, and physiological data including heart rate, heart rate variability, and skin conductance response. DISCUSSION: This trial will evaluate the relevance of using placebo acupuncture devices as controls using a validation test procedure.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service: KCT0001347 .
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.