Trial reportTrials2017
The efficacy of traditional acupuncture on patients with chronic neck pain: study protocol of a randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in Trials, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
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, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Immediate effects of traditional and laser acupuncture in chronic non-specific neck pain: a randomized controlled clinical trial.Lasers in medical science · 2024Trial
- Placebo response varies between different types of sham acupuncture: A randomized double-blind trial in neck pain patients.European journal of pain (London, England) · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Protocol for the real-world evidence of acupuncture for chronic neck pain in the elderly: an observational multi-centre cohort study.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Article
- Acupuncture as Part of Multimodal Analgesia for Chronic Pain.Orthopedic reviews · 2022Article
- Efficacy of Dry Needling and Acupuncture in the Treatment of Neck Pain.Anesthesiology and pain medicine · 2021Review
- Acupuncture for chronic neck pain with sensitive points: study protocol for a multicentre randomised controlled trial.BMJ open · 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 at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundA large number of randomized trials on the use of acupuncture to treat chronic pain have been conducted. However, there is considerable controversy regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture. We designed a randomized trial involving patients with chronic neck pain (CNP) to investigate whether acupuncture is more effective than a placebo in treating CNP. METHODS/
designA five-arm, parallel, single-blinded, randomized, sham-controlled trial was designed. Patients with CNP of more than 3 months' duration are being recruited from Guangdong Provincial Hospital of Chinese Medicine (China). Following examination, 175 patients will be randomized into one of five groups (35 patients in each group) as follows: a traditional acupuncture group (group A), a shallow-puncture group (group B), a non-acupoint acupuncture group (group C), a non-acupoint shallow-puncture group (group D) and a sham-puncture group (group E). The interventions will last for 20 min and will be carried out twice a week for 5 weeks. The primary outcome will be evaluated by changes in the Northwick Park Neck Pain Questionnaire (NPQ). Secondary outcomes will be measured by the pain threshold, the Short Form McGill Pain Questionnaire-2 (SF-MPQ-2), the 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) and diary entries. Analysis of the data will be performed at baseline, at the end of the intervention and at 3 months' follow-up. The safety of acupuncture will be evaluated at each treatment period. DISCUSSION: The purpose of this trial is to determine whether traditional acupuncture is more effective for chronic pain relief than sham acupuncture in adults with CNP, and to determine which type of sham acupuncture is the optimal control for clinical trials.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR-IOR-15006886 . Registered on 2 July 2015.
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.