ArticleMedicine2019
Acupoint injection treatment for primary osteoporosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials protocol.
Article in Medicine, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 4 citations in OpenAlex.
- A bibliometric analysis of acupuncture applied to primary osteoporosis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Acupoint injection treatment for non-dialysis dependent chronic kidney disease: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.Medicine · 2020Pooled it
- Stimuli-induced NOergic Molecules and Neuropeptides Mediated Axon Reflexes Contribute to Tracers along Meridian Pathways.Current topics in medicinal chemistry · 2024Review
- Astragalus improve aging bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells (BMSCs) vitality and osteogenesis through VD-FGF23-Klotho axis.International journal of clinical and experimental pathology · 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
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcupoint injection has currently received increasing attention as a treatment for primary osteoporosis (POP). A number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have reported that acupoint injection have some advantages in treatment of POP. However, no article has summarized the existing evidence. This study will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection as a clinical treatment for POP, so as to provide an important reference for clinical decision-making.
methodsRCTs of acupoint injection compared with conventional non-acupoint injection for POP were identified in searches of 7 databases from their inception to March 2019. All data were assessed and extracted by 2 authors independently. The risk of bias assessment recommended by the Cochrane Collaboration was used to assess the quality of the selected studies. Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane Collaboration) was used to conduct meta-analysis for the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection.
resultThe results of this systemic review and meta-analysis will be submitted to a recognized journal for publication.
conclusionThis systemic review and meta-analysis will evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupoint injection as a clinical treatment for POP. We hope this study can make a definitive conclusion for acupoint injection in the treatment of POP. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (registration number CRD42019130890).
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.