ArticleTrials2018
A multi-center, randomized controlled clinical trial, cost-effectiveness and qualitative research of electroacupuncture with usual care for patients with non-acute pain after back surgery: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.
Article in Trials, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Electroacupuncture enhances nerve regeneration and functional recovery in a rat model of median nerve transection.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlthough pain after back surgery is known to be difficult to control, various treatment options are available to patients and physicians. A protocol for a confirmatory randomized controlled trial (RCT) on pain and function after back surgery was designed based on the results of a pilot trial. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) with usual care (UC) versus UC alone on pain control and functional improvement after back surgery. METHODS/
designThis study is a multi-center, randomized, assessor-blinded trial with an active control conducted in conjunction with a cost-effectiveness analysis and qualitative research. Participants with non-acute low back pain with or without leg pain after back surgery who have a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) pain intensity score ≥ 50 mm will be randomly assigned to either the EA with UC group (n = 54) or the UC group (n = 54). Following randomization, participants in both groups will receive the same UC treatment twice a week for a four-week treatment period. Participants assigned to the EA with UC group will additionally receive EA twice a week for the same four-week period. The primary outcome measure will be assessed using a VAS pain intensity score for low back pain. The secondary outcomes will include the Oswestry Disability Index, EuroQol 5-Dimension score, and drug intake. The primary and secondary outcomes will be measured at one, four, and eight weeks post randomization. DISCUSSION: The results of this study will provide evidence of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of EA in managing postoperative pain following back surgery. In addition, the qualitative research results will help improve the quality of integrative medical interventions.
trial registrationClinical Research Information Service (CRIS), Republic of Korea, KCT0001939 . Registered on 8 June 2016.
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.