ArticleMedicine2019
Evidence for miniscalpel-needle/needle knife in the management of chronic pain related conditions: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- EEG alpha/beta features as a biomarker for quantifying pain in patients with lumbar disk herniation.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2025Article
- Evidence for acupotomology in the management of cervical radiculopathy: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.Medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe aim of this systematic review with meta-analysis is to determine the effect of miniscalpel-needle/needle-knife in treatment of chronic pain symptoms.
methodsThe following electronic databases will be searched by 2 independent reviewers: PubMed, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Springer, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM). All randomized controlled trials on miniscalpel-needle/need-knife for chronic pain published in electronic databases from inception to August 1, 2019 with language restricted in Chinses and English will be included in the study.Methodologic quality is assessed by 2 blinded reviewers independently screen and score the articles using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro) scale and the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed when there is sufficient clinical homogeneity in at least 2 studies. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach is used to rate the body of evidence in each meta-analysis. When the quantitive evaluation is not available, a qualitative description of the results of single study is provided.
resultsA high-quality synthesis of current evidence of miniscapel-needle/needle-knife treating chronic pain will be illustrated using subjective reports and objective measures of performance. The primary outcomes consisted of pain intensity improvement rate clinically meaningful improvements in pain and disability are also noted. Secondary outcomes involve the short form of McGill Pain Questionnaire score (SF-MPQ) and the side effects.
conclusionThis protocol will present the evidence of whether miniscalpel-needle/needle-knife is an effective intervention for chronic pain. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019129076.
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.