Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26977172›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2016

Acupuncture for Pain Management in Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Caiqiong Hu, Haibo Zhang, Wanyin Wu, Weiqing Yu, Yong Li, Jianping Bai, Baohua Luo, Shuping Li

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 52 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
52citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
30.3field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

52 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 118 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Multidimensional Treatment of Cancer Pain.Current oncology reports · 2017
    Pooled it
  10. Trial
  11. Trial
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Caiqiong HuThe Second Clinical Medical School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, China.
Haibo ZhangDepartment of Oncology, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Wanyin WuDepartment of Oncology, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Weiqing YuThe Second Clinical Medical School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, China.
Yong LiDepartment of Oncology, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Jianping BaiDepartment of Oncology, Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510120, China.
Baohua LuoThe Second Clinical Medical School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, China.
Shuping LiThe Second Clinical Medical School, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangzhou 510405, China.
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective. To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for cancer-related pain. Methods. A systematic review of literatures published from database inception to February 2015 was conducted in eight databases. RCTs involving acupuncture for treatment of cancer-related pain were identified. Two researchers independently performed article selection, data extraction, and quality assessment of data. Results. 1,639 participants in twenty RCTs were analyzed. All selected RCTs were associated with high risk of bias. Meta-analysis indicated that acupuncture alone did not have superior pain-relieving effects as compared with conventional drug therapy. However, as compared with the drug therapy alone, acupuncture plus drug therapy resulted in increased pain remission rate, shorter onset time of pain relief, longer pain-free duration, and better quality of life without serious adverse effects. However, GRADE analysis revealed that the quality of all outcomes about acupuncture plus drug therapy was very low. Conclusions. Acupuncture plus drug therapy is more effective than conventional drug therapy alone for cancer-related pain. However, multicenter high-quality RCTs with larger sample sizes are needed to provide stronger evidence for the effectiveness of acupuncture in cancer-related pain due to the low data quality of the studies included in the current meta-analysis.

Identifiers

PMID26977172
PMCPMC4764722
OpenAlexW2265370606

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.