Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27533271›Full record

SynthesisRevista latino-americana de enfermagem2016

Effectiveness of Traditional Chinese Acupuncture versus Sham Acupuncture: a Systematic Review.

Luís Carlos, Lóris Aparecida Prado da Cruz, Vanessa Cristina Leopoldo, Fabrício Ribeiro de Campos, Ana Maria de Almeida, Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira Silveira

Open access · diamondAbstract readComparative StudySystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Revista latino-americana de enfermagem, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 22 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
22citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
7.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

22 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 42 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Article
  7. Role of acupuncture in critically ill patients: A systematic review.Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Luís CarlosDoctoral Student, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Lóris Aparecida Prado da CruzMaster's Student, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Vanessa Cristina LeopoldoMaster's Student, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. RN, Hospital das Clínicas, Faculdade de Medicina de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Fabrício Ribeiro de CamposMaster's Student, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil. RN, Fundação Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Franca, Franca, SP, Brazil.
Ana Maria de AlmeidaPhD, Associate Professor, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Renata Cristina de Campos Pereira SilveiraPhD, Professor, Escola de Enfermagem de Ribeirão Preto, Universidade de São Paulo, PAHO/WHO Collaborating Centre for Nursing Research Development, Ribeirão Preto, SP, Brazil.
Universidade de São Paulo · BRUniversidade de Ribeirão Preto · BR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveto identify and synthesize the evidence from randomized clinical trials that tested the effectiveness of traditional Chinese acupuncture in relation to sham acupuncture for the treatment of hot flashes in menopausal women with breast cancer.

methodsystematic review guided by the recommendations of the Cochrane Collaboration. Citations were searched in the following databases: MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and LILACS. A combination of the following keywords was used: breast neoplasm, acupuncture, acupuncture therapy, acupuncture points, placebos, sham treatment, hot flashes, hot flushes, menopause, climacteric, and vasomotor symptoms.

resultsa total of 272 studies were identified, five of which were selected and analyzed. Slight superiority of traditional acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture was observed; however, there were no strong statistical associations.

conclusionsthe evidence gathered was not sufficient to affirm the effectiveness of traditional acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture. OBJETIVO: identificar e sintetizar as evidências oriundas de ensaios clínicos randomizados que testaram a efetividade da acupuntura tradicional chinesa em relação à sham acupuntura para o tratamento dos fogachos em mulheres com câncer de mama no climatério. MÉTODO: revisão sistemática guiada pelas recomendações da Colaboração Cochrane. A busca foi realizada nas bases de dados: MEDLINE via PubMed, Web of Science, CENTRAL Cochrane, CINAHL e LILACS. Adotou-se a combinação dos descritores: breast neoplasm, acupuncture, acupuncture therapy, acupuncture points, placebos, sham treatment, hot flashes, hot flushes, menopause, climacteric, vasomotor symptoms. RESULTADOS: foram identificados 272 estudos, sendo 5 selecionados e analisados. Foi observada discreta superioridade da acupuntura tradicional em relação à sham, entretanto, sem fortes associações estatísticas. CONCLUSÕES: as evidências obtidas não foram suficientes para afirmar quanto à efetividade da acupuntura tradicional em relação à sham. OBJETIVO: Identificar y sintetizar la evidencia de un ensayo clínico aleatorizado que examinó la eficacia de la acupuntura tradicional en relación a la acupuntura sham para el tratamiento de sofocos en las mujeres menopáusicas con cáncer de mama. MÉTODO: Revisión sistemática guiada por las recomendaciones de la Colaboración Cochrane. Las referencias bibliográficas se buscaron en las siguientes bases de datos: MEDLINE vía PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), CINAHL y LILACS. Se utilizó una combinación de las siguientes palabras clave: breast neoplasm, acupuncture, acupuncture therapy, acupuncture points, placebos, sham treatment, hot flashes, hot flushes, menopause, climacteric, vasomotor symptoms. RESULTADOS: Se identificó un total de 272 estudios, cinco de los cuales fueron seleccionados y analizados. Se encontró una ligera superioridad de la acupuntura tradicional comparada con la acupuntura sham; sin embargo, no se encontraron asociaciones estadísticas fuertes. CONCLUSIONES: La evidencia obtenida no fue suficiente para confirmar la eficacia de la acupuntura tradicional comparada con la acupuntura sham.

Indexed as

Acupuncture TherapyMedicine, Chinese TraditionalBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHot FlashesHumansMenopausePlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicTreatment OutcomePlacebos

Identifiers

PMID27533271
PMCPMC4996090
OpenAlexW2507668163

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.