SynthesisChinese journal of integrative medicine2020
Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Miniscalpel-Needle Treatment for Tension-Type Headache: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Synthesis in Chinese journal of integrative medicine, 2020. 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.
- Effectiveness and Safety of Acupotomy on Lumbar Spinal Stenosis: A Pragmatic, Pilot, Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2023Trial
- Core Outcome Set Development for Tension-Type Headache Treatment Using Traditional Chinese Medicine: Protocol for a Delphi Consensus Study.JMIR research protocols · 2025Article
- Effectiveness and Safety of Acupotomy Treatment on Shoulder Pain: 25 Multicenter Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
- Acupoints for Tension-Type Headache: A Literature Study Based on Data Mining Technology.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2021Review
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo investigate the clinical efficacy and safety of miniscalpel-needle (MSN) treatment for tension-type headache (TTH).
methodSeven medical databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating the effect and safety of MSN treatment. All articles published up to November 15, 2018 were retrieved. A meta-analysis was conducted for the included studies, and the risk of bias was assessed. Primary outcomes were visual analogue scale (VAS) or numeric rating scale (NRS) score. Secondary outcomes were clinical effective rates including total effective rate (TER), markedly effective rate (MER), and totally cured rate (TCR) determined by improvement in clinical symptoms or VAS scores, the frequency of adverse events (AEs) that occurred during the study, and participant quality of life (QOL).
resultsSeven RCTs involving 724 participants were included. MSN treatment showed significantly higher MER and TCR [relative risk (RR) 1.27, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.01 to 1.61; RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.09 to 1.57, respectively], but not TER (RR 1.03, 95% CI 0.96 to 1.10) compared to acupuncture. MSN treatment plus conventional treatment showed significant lower VAS and higher TER, MER, and TCR (mean difference -3.54, 95% CI -3.80 to -3.28; RR 1.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 1.23; RR 2.31, 95% CI 1.50 to 3.58; RR 3.01, 95% CI 2.25 to 4.02, respectively) compared to conventional treatment.
conclusionsAccording to current evidence, MSN treatment as a monotherapy or as an adjunctive treatment to other existing treatments might have benefits on treating TTH. However, since the number and the sample size of studies included were both small and the methodological quality was poor, the findings of this review should be interpreted with great caution, and our confidence in the results is low. A high quality RCT using objective outcomes should be performed on this topic.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32170522What 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.