Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33300369›Full record

SynthesisAcupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society2021

Do the effects of acupuncture vary between acupuncturists? Analysis of the Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration individual patient data meta-analysis.

Andrew J Vickers, Emily A Vertosick, George Lewith, Hugh MacPherson, Nadine E Foster, Karen J Sherman, Dominik Irnich, Claudia M Witt, Klaus Linde, Acupuncture Trialists’ Collaboration

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Acupuncture in medicine : journal of the British Medical Acupuncture Society, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Effective Oriental Magic for Analgesia: Acupuncture.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2022
    Review
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

10 authors.

Andrew J VickersMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Emily A VertosickMemorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
George LewithUniversity of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
Hugh MacPhersonUniversity of York, York, UK.
Nadine E FosterKeele University, Staffordshire, UK.
Karen J ShermanKaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Seattle, WA, USA.
Dominik IrnichLudwig-Maximilians-Universität München (LMU Munich), Munich, Germany.
Claudia M WittUniversity Hospital Zurich, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Klaus LindeTechnical University Munich, Munich, Germany.
Acupuncture Trialists’ Collaboration

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration: meta-analysis of chronic pain trialsR01AT006794 · NCCIH · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI VICKERS, ANDREW J · 2011 to 2015
$1.6M
Acupuncture Trialists' Collaboration: meta-analysis of chronic pain trialsR21AT004189 · NCCIH · SLOAN-KETTERING INST CAN RESEARCH · PI VICKERS, ANDREW J · 2008 to 2010
$604k
NCCIH NIH HHS R01 AT006794NCCIH NIH HHS R21 AT004189NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe degree to which the effects of acupuncture treatment vary between acupuncturists is unknown. We used a large individual patient dataset of trials of acupuncture for chronic pain to assess practitioner heterogeneity.

methodsIndividual patient data linked to identifiable acupuncturists were drawn from a dataset of 39 high-quality trials of acupuncture, where the comparators were either sham acupuncture or non-acupuncture controls, such as standard care or waitlist. Heterogeneity among acupuncturists was assessed by meta-analysis.

resultsA total of 1206 acupuncturists in 13 trials were included. Statistically significant heterogeneity was found in trials with sham-control groups (p < 0.0001) and non-acupuncture control groups (p <0.0001). However, the degree of heterogeneity was very small, with the observed distribution of treatment effects virtually overlapping that expected by chance. For instance, for non-acupuncture-controlled trials, the proportion of acupuncturists with effect sizes half a standard deviation greater or less than average was expected to be 34%, but was observed to be 37%. A limitation is that the trials included a relatively limited range of acupuncturists, mainly physician-acupuncturists. DISCUSSION: Although differences in effects between acupuncturists were greater than expected by chance, the degree of variation was small. This suggests that most chronic pain patients in clinical practice would have similar results to those reported in high-quality trials; comparably, we did not find evidence to suggest that greater standardization of acupuncture practice would improve outcomes. Further research needs to be conducted exploring variability using a sample of acupuncturists with a broader range of practice styles, training and experience.

Indexed as

Acupuncture TherapyChronic PainClinical Trials as TopicHumansPhysiciansSurveys and Questionnairesacupunctureacupuncturist variabilitychronic painpractitioner variabilitysecondary analysis

Identifiers

PMID33300369
PMCPMC9598051

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.