Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33907457›Full record

ReviewJournal of pain research2021

Optimal Acupuncture Methods for Nonspecific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Linjia Wang, Zihan Yin, Yutong Zhang, Mingsheng Sun, Yang Yu, Yanming Lin, Ling Zhao

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of pain research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. 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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linjia WangSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.ORCID 0000-0002-3333-2189
Zihan YinSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Yutong ZhangSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Mingsheng SunSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Yang YuSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Yanming LinHospital of Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, Sichuan, People's Republic of China.
Ling ZhaoSchool of Acu-Mox and Tuina, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, 610075, People's Republic of China.
Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNonspecific low back pain (NLBP) is a common disabling disease that cannot be attributed to a specific, recognizable pathology. The use of acupuncture for NLBP is supported by several guidelines and systematic reviews. However, the efficacy of different acupuncture methods for NLBP management is still debated. This study ranked the effectiveness of acupuncture methods using network meta-analysis to screen out the optimal acupuncture methods and expound the current controversies for their effective application in health policies as well as guiding clinical operations.

methodsThe following databases were searched for relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to December 20, 2020: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, WANFANG Database, Chinese biomedical literature service system, PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane Library. Relevant registration platforms, including the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Number Register (ISRCTN) and Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ChiCTR), were also searched. Manual retrieval and tracking of references was also performed. Pairwise meta-analysis and Bayesian network meta-analysis using Revman and ADDIS, respectively, were performed and standardized mean differences examined. The primary outcome was visual analog scale (VAS) score and the secondary outcome was Oswestry Disability Index (ODI) score. Safety was defined as the incidence of adverse events.

resultsA total of 30 trials with 3196 participants were analyzed; 16.67% of which showed a high risk of bias. The results indicated that fire acupuncture plus manual acupuncture, auricular needling, and electroacupuncture plus warm acupuncture were most effective in reducing VAS score. The most effective interventions for reducing ODI score were manual acupuncture plus conventional medicines, followed by moxibustion and manual acupuncture plus moxibustion. Manual acupuncture plus moxibustion was dominant in the cluster ranking. Acupuncture showed a lower incidence of adverse events (7.70%) than other interventions (conventional medicines, routine care, and placebo; 12.24%).

conclusionWe found that manual acupuncture plus moxibustion is the most effective way to reduce NLBP pain and disability. Acupuncture is safer than other interventions. However, more direct comparative evidence from high-quality, large-sample, multicenter RCTs is needed to validate these findings.

Indexed as

acupuncturenetwork meta-analysisnonspecific low back pain

Identifiers

PMID33907457
PMCPMC8068518
OpenAlexW3154278941

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.