ArticlePain medicine (Malden, Mass.)2023
Retracted: Effect of Sham Acupuncture on Chronic Pain: A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Article in Pain medicine (Malden, Mass.), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It has been retracted, and should not be counted. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- Central Mechanism of Acupuncture Treatment in Patients with Migraine: Study Protocol for Randomized Controlled Neuroimaging Trial.Journal of pain research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
- Retraction · 2023-02-03Error in Analyses · Error in Data · Error in Methods · Error in Results and/or Conclusions ·
- Retracted
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAlong with increasing research on acupuncture for chronic pain, the validity of sham acupuncture (SA) has also been argued.
methodsNine databases were searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from the inception dates of the databases to July 5, 2022. With Markov Chain Monte Carlo methods, a Bayesian multiple-treatment network meta-analysis (NMA) with random-effects model was conducted.
resultsA total of 62 RCTs with 6,806 patients and four kinds of treatments (real acupuncture [RA], non-acupuncture [NA], penetrative SA [PSA], and non-penetrative SA [NPSA]) were included. The results indicated that both NPSA and PSA were not superior to NA in improving chronic pain (NPSA: mean difference [MD]= -4.77, 95% confidence interval [CI] -11.09 to 1.52; PSA: MD= -4.96, 95% CI -10.38 to 0.48). After NPSA and PSA were combined into the SA group, the weak trend of pain relief from SA was still not statistically significant (MD= -4.91, 95% CI -9.93 to 0.05). NPSA and PSA had similar effects (MD= 0.18, 95% CI -5.45 to 5.81). RA was significantly associated with pain relief, compared with NPSA and PSA (NPSA: MD= -12.03, 95% CI -16.62 to -7.41; PSA: MD= -11.85, 95% CI -15.48 to -8.23). The results were generally consistent regardless of pain phenotype, frequency, duration, acupuncture methods, analgesic intake, or detection bias.
conclusionThese results suggested that acupuncture was significantly associated with reduced chronic pain. The two kinds of placebo acupuncture, NPSA and PSA, have similar effects. Both NPSA and PSA, with a weak but not significant effect, are appropriate to be inert placebo controls in RCTs for chronic pain.
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.