ArticleBMJ open2020
Efficacy of acupuncture versus sham acupuncture or waitlist control for patients with chronic plantar fasciitis: study protocol for a two-centre randomised controlled trial.
Article in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04185259 (Efficacy of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture or Waitlist Control for Patients With Chronic Planter Fasciitis), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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.
Efficacy of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture or Waitlist Control for Patients With Chronic Planter Fasciitis: Study Protocol for a 2-center Randomized Controlled Trial
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- An assessment of plantar fascia with ultrasound findings in patients with plantar fasciitis: a systematic review.Journal of ultrasound · 2023Pooled it
- Artificial Intelligence Technology Combined with Ultrasound-Guided Needle Knife Interventional Treatment of PF: Improvement of Pain, Fascia Thickness, and Ankle-Foot Function in Patients.Computational and mathematical methods in medicine · 2022Trial
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 5 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPlantar fasciitis (PF) is reported to be the most common cause of plantar heel pain. Acupuncture has been used for patients experiencing PF, but evidence of the efficacy of acupuncture on PF is limited. The primary objective of this trial is to compare combined acupuncture and sham acupuncture (SA) versus waitlist control for improving the level of pain experienced by patients suffering from chronic PF. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This will be a two-centre, parallel-group, sham and no-treatment controlled, assessor-blinded randomised trial. We will randomly allocate 120 participants with chronic PF to acupuncture, SA and waitlist control groups at a ratio of 2:1:1. Participants in the acupuncture and SA groups will receive a 30 min acupuncture or SA treatment for a total of 12 sessions over 4 weeks, with a 12-week follow-up. Participants in the waitlist control group will not undergo treatment for a period of 16 weeks but instead will have the option of 4 weeks (12 sessions) of acupuncture free of charge at the end of the follow-up period. The primary outcome will be the treatment response rate 4 weeks after randomisation, assessed as a minimum of 50% improvement in the worst pain intensity during the first steps in the morning compared with the baseline. All analyses will be performed with a two-sided p value of <0.05 considered significant following the intention-to-treat principle. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the Guang'anmen Hospital, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences (approval no. 2019-210-KY). The results will be disseminated through presentation at a peer-reviewed medical journal, the relevant conferences and scientific meetings.
trial registrationNCT04185259.
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.