ReviewIntegrative medicine research2018
Clinical effects of acupressure on neck pain syndrome (
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Effectiveness of Jingjin Therapy for Non-Specific Chronic Neck Pain with Extension Dysfunction: A Randomised Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2025Trial
- An Interventional Response Phenotyping Study in Chronic Low Back Pain: Protocol for a Mechanistic Randomized Controlled Trial.Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.) · 2023Article
- Iatrogenic Pneumothorax during Acupuncture: Case Report.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Article
- Effect of Acupressure on Pain Severity and Vital Signs in Coronary Artery Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.SAGE open nursingReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
background
methodsWe searched eight databases for studies published up to August 29, 2017. Clinical studies evaluating the efficacy of acupressure on
resultsTwo case studies and 13 case series with 1037 participants were included, and 17 types of proximal acupuncture points and 14 types of distal acupuncture points were used. The most commonly used proximal and distal acupuncture points were GB20 and GB39, respectively. The CER in one study using both proximal and distal acupressure was 100%. The CER and ICR in studies using only proximal acupressure was 95.65% and 71.61%, respectively. The CER and ICR in studies using only distal acupressure was 99.37% and 69.08%, respectively. Eight studies performed simple acupressure technique using one acupuncture point, of which SI11, GB39, BL57, and TE3 were used. None of the studies reported adverse events.
conclusionThis review suggests that acupressure may be effective on
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.