ReviewIntegrative medicine research2022
Effectiveness and safety of acupuncture for angina pectoris: An overview of systematic reviews.
Review in Integrative medicine research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Yangxin decoction for the treatment of angina pectoris of coronary heart disease: A systematic review of randomized controlled trial.Medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Electroacupuncture for the treatment of frozen shoulder: A systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Early acupuncture exposure and mortality in older adults with ischemic heart disease: A nationwide cohort study in Korea.Integrative medicine research · 2026Article
- Efficacy and safety of acupuncture for coronary microvascular disease: study protocol for a pilot randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine · 2026Article
- Traditional Chinese medicine as a protective strategy against chemotherapy-induced cardiotoxicity: An overview of the literature.Journal of traditional and complementary medicine · 2025Review
- Review
- Acupuncture for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder in children: A protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis.PloS one · 2022Article
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 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The number of systematic reviews meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on the effectiveness of acupuncture for angina pectoris (AP) is increasing. Due to the inconsistent conclusions and unknown quality of these SRs/MAs, this overview aimed to systematically evaluate and synthesize the existing SRs/MAs, attempting to provide more reliable evidence for the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture in the treatment of AP. Methods: SRs/MAs were searched via eight databases from inception to March 14, 2022. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool. The quality of the methodology, reporting, and evidence were assessed by the Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), the Preferred Reporting Item for Systematic Review and Meta-analysis for Acupuncture (PRISMA-A), and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) system, respectively. Results: Sixteen SRs/MAs were included and fifteen SRs/MAs were considered being of critically low quality according to AMSTAR-2. Only three SRs/MAs were rated at low risk of bias. No study reported all the items listed in the PRISMA-A checklist. No high-quality evidence with GRADE assessment was found. With the low-quality evidence, acupuncture combined with other interventions was superior to monotherapy (medications or Chinese medicine) in the angina symptom and electrocardiogram recovery. No adverse effects owing to acupuncture were reported. Conclusions: Owing to the lack of high-quality evidence provided by the current SRs/MAs, the effectiveness of acupuncture for AP still warrants further proof. Further researches with more critical design and methodology are needed for providing more convincing evidence. Registration: This review was registered at PROSPERO (www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/): CRD42021219367.
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.