ArticleMedicine2022
Comparative effectiveness of different acupuncture therapies for neck pain.
Article in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparative efficacy of traditional non-pharmacological add-on treatments in patients with stable chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Factors and Their Impact on Treatment Effect of Acupuncture in Different Outcomes: A Meta-Regression of Acupuncture Randomized Controlled Trials.Chinese journal of integrative medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Predicting acupuncture efficacy for neck pain based on functional connectivity features: a machine learning study.Annals of medicine · 2025Article
- Cochrane reviews of acupuncture are dated, do not account for the specific effects of sham controls and likely underestimate the efficacy of acupuncture therapy.Integrative medicine research · 2025Review
- Effect of Contralateral Acupuncture (Geoja Technique) in Musculoskeletal Disorders Stratified by Pulse Strength Differences: A Retrospective Study.Journal of pain research · 2025Article
- Article
- [Complementary and alternative medicine-An option for chronic pain patients?]Schmerz (Berlin, Germany) · 2023Article
- A Bibliometric Analysis of Acupuncture Therapy in the Treatment of Musculoskeletal Pain from 2003 to 2022.Journal of pain research · 2023Review
- Acupoint catgut embedding for chronic non-specific low back pain: A protocol of randomized controlled trial.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundNeck pain is a common musculoskeletal symptom that has negative effects on quality of life and work productivity. Acupuncture has been widely used for neck pain, and a number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and systematic reviews (SRs) have evaluated its effectiveness. However, previous studies have obtained inconsistent results regarding the effects of acupuncture for neck pain, and there is no SR for the comparative efficacy and safety of various types of acupuncture. Therefore, we herein conducted a SR and network meta-analysis to compare and rank different types of acupuncture with respect to their effectiveness in treating neck pain.
methodsWe searched 9 electronic databases for relevant RCTs published from their inception to July 1, 2021. Pairwise meta-analyses and network meta-analysis were performed with R software using the frequentist framework. Change of pain intensity was assessed as the primary outcome, and change of pain-related disability and efficacy rate were assessed as secondary outcomes. The Cochrane risk of bias tool and the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) instrument were used to evaluate the quality of the included RCTs and the certainty of the evidence.
resultsA total of 65 RCTs involving 5266 participants and 9 interventions were included. Three network meta-analyses were constructed for the following: pain intensity (42 RCTs, 3158 participants), pain-related disability (21 RCTs, 1581 participants), and efficacy rate (40 RCTs, 3512 participants). The results indicated that fire acupuncture, electroacupuncture, and warm acupuncture were more effective than manual acupuncture in terms of pain intensity reduction and efficacy rate, and that electroacupuncture decreased pain-related disability more effectively than manual acupuncture. Fire acupuncture ranked first among the 9 interventions. The overall q of evidence was very low according to the GRADE assessment. The reported adverse events were not serious.
conclusionFire acupuncture, warm acupuncture, acupoint catgut embedding, and electroacupuncture ranked higher than other interventions (usual care, sham acupuncture, no treatment) in reducing the pain and disability index scores and the efficacy rate. However, the included trials were evaluated as being of low quality; thus, we recommend additional well-designed RCTs with larger sample sizes to confirm these findings. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO, CRD42021235274.
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.