Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32351602›Full record

ArticleEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2020

Group versus Individual Acupuncture (AP) for Cancer Pain: A Randomized Noninferiority Trial.

Erica Nicole Reed, Jessa Landmann, Devesh Oberoi, Katherine-Ann L Piedalue, Peter Faris, Linda E Carlson

Open access · hybridAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 17% of its field
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

3 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Acupuncture for cancer symptoms: Clinical application and longitudinal impact a retrospective observational real-world data study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Observational
  2. Article
  3. 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

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Erica Nicole ReedDivision of Psychosocial Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Jessa LandmannVive Integrative Health Group, 1889 45 Street NW, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Devesh OberoiDivision of Psychosocial Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Katherine-Ann L PiedalueDivision of Psychosocial Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Peter FarisDepartment of Analytics, Alberta Health Services (AHS) and Department of Community Health Sciences, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
Linda E CarlsonDivision of Psychosocial Oncology, Department of Oncology, Cumming School of Medicine, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4411-2085
University of Calgary · CAAlberta Health Services · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA service delivery model using group acupuncture (AP) may be more cost-effective than individual AP in general, but there is little evidence to assess whether group AP is a comparable treatment in terms of efficacy to standard individual AP. The study aimed to compare the group to individual delivery of 6-week AP among cancer patients with pain.

methodsThe study design was a randomized noninferiority trial of the individual (gold standard treatment) vs. group AP for cancer pain. The primary outcome was pain interference and severity, measured through the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI). Secondary outcomes included measures of mood, sleep, fatigue, and social support. Changes in outcomes from pre- to postintervention were examined using linear mixed effects modeling and noninferiority was inferred using a noninferiority margin, a difference of change between the two arms and 95% CIs. Pain interference was tested with a noninferiority margin of 1 on the BPI, while pain severity and secondary outcomes were compared using conventional statistical methods.

resultsThe trial included 74 participants randomly allocated to group (35) or individual (39) AP. The noninferiority hypothesis was supported for pain interference [Ө - 1, Δ 1.03, 95% CI: 0.15-2.20] and severity [Ө - 0.81, Δ 0.52, 95% CI:.33-1.38] as well as for mood [Ө - 7.52, Δ 9.86, 95% CI: 0.85-18.86], sleep [Ө - 1.65, Δ 2.60, 95% CI: 0.33-4.88], fatigue [Ө 8.54, Δ - 15.57, 95% CI: 25.60-5.54], and social support [Ө.26, Δ - 0.15, 95% CI:  - 0.42-0.13], meaning that group AP was not inferior to individual AP treatment. Both arms evidenced statistically significant improvements across all symptoms before and after the intervention. Effect sizes for the group vs. individual AP on outcomes of pain, sleep, mood, and social support ranged from small to very large and were consistently larger in the group condition. The total average cost-per-person for group AP ($221.25) was almost half that of individual AP ($420).

conclusionsThis is the first study to examine the noninferiority of group AP with the gold standard individual AP. Group AP was noninferior to individual AP for treating cancer pain and was superior in many health outcomes. Group AP is more cost-effective for alleviating cancer pain and should be considered for implementation trials.

Identifiers

PMID32351602
PMCPMC7174934
OpenAlexW3015594824

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.