ReviewFrontiers of medicine2021
Acupuncture is ineffective for chronic low back pain? A critical analysis and rethinking.
Review in Frontiers of medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Needling Point Location Used in Sham Acupuncture for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.JAMA network open · 2023Pooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Warm Acupuncture Compared to Gabapentin for Pain Management in Patients with Sciatica in Bhutan: A Randomized Controlled (ACUWARM) Trial.Journal of evidence-based integrative medicineTrial
- Reflex Auriculo-Cardiac (RAC) Induced by Auricular Laser and Needle Acupuncture: New Case Results Using a Smartphone.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- The Efficacy and Safety of Acupuncture for Prophylaxis of Vestibular Migraine: A Study Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial.Frontiers in neurology · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Acupuncture is a promising treatment for relieving pain and improving lower back function in clinical practice. However, evidence from randomized clinical trials (RCTs) remains controversial. Most RCTs conclude that acupuncture procedures for chronic low back pain (CLBP) had no significant difference in efficacy and belonged to placebo. We carefully reviewed and analyzed the methodology and implementation of sham acupuncture in RCTs. Controversial evidence of acupuncture for CLBP is only a microcosm of the evaluation methodological limitation of acupuncture. Inappropriate selection of sham acupuncture controls, rigorous RCT research models, and incorrect interpretation of results may contribute to negative evidence. Evaluating and disregarding the holistic efficacy of acupuncture with an explanatory RCT model based on evaluation drugs may be unwise. Moreover, sham acupuncture is often proven to be non-inert, unreasonable, and with low fidelity. Pitfalls of the explanatory RCT model and sham acupuncture design should be avoided. Establishing a new evaluation system that is in line with the clinical characteristics of acupuncture and obtaining high-quality evidence are difficult but promising tasks.
Indexed as
Identifiers
33870448What 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.