Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30584456›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2018

Acupuncture for Primary Dysmenorrhea: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.

Furong Zhang, Mingsheng Sun, Shanshan Han, Xiaoyu Shen, Yanan Luo, Dongling Zhong, Xiujuan Zhou, Fanrong Liang, Rongjiang Jin

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  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. Article
  10. Article
  11. International standard of Traditional Chinese Medicine techniques: clinical guidelines for dysmenorrhea (2022).Journal of traditional Chinese medicine = Chung i tsa chih ying wen pan · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Review
  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

9 authors.

Furong ZhangCollege of Health Preservation and Rehabilitation, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4671-2295
Mingsheng SunCollege of Acupuncture and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.ORCID 0000-0002-6748-5087
Shanshan HanCollege of Clinical Medicine, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4395-9372
Xiaoyu ShenNuclear Industry 416 Hospital, Chengdu 610075, China.
Yanan LuoCollege of Acupuncture and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.ORCID 0000-0001-8345-6270
Dongling ZhongCollege of Health Preservation and Rehabilitation, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.ORCID 0000-0003-4606-925X
Xiujuan ZhouCollege of Clinical Medicine, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.
Fanrong LiangCollege of Acupuncture and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.ORCID 0000-0001-9689-5766
Rongjiang JinCollege of Health Preservation and Rehabilitation, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu 610075, China.ORCID 0000-0002-4733-9955

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesAs current evidence of the effectiveness on acupuncture for primary dysmenorrhea (PD) is inconsistent, we aimed to critically appraise the evidence from relevant systematic reviews (SRs).

methodsSRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) concerning acupuncture and PD were searched in four databases. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and latest Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR2) checklists were used to assess reporting characteristics and methodological quality, respectively.

resultsThe literature search yielded 38 potential records, of which five met the inclusion criteria. The total average (SD) for PRISMA was 20.60 (1.14) out of 27. All five SRs have more than one critical weakness in AMSTAR2, so their methodological qualities were considered as critically low. The most frequent problems included nonregistration of study protocol, absence of a list of excluded studies, and unclear acknowledgment of conflicts of interests. The three studies of higher methodological quality reported positive results in pain relief.

conclusionThe reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analysis studies were suboptimal, which demands further improvement. More efforts are needed to improve validity of systematic reviews and RCTs in this area.

Identifiers

PMID30584456
PMCPMC6280308

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.