Trial reportMedicine2022
Effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture and its cotreatment with electronic moxibustion in the treatment of patients with moderate benign prostatic hyperplasia using alpha blocker: An assessor-blinded, randomized, controlled pilot study.
Trial report in Medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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 at 3 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundBenign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) is a disease that affects the quality of life by causing lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) in men. Electroacupuncture (EA) and moxibustion therapy have been suggested as an adjunct therapy for improving LUTS in patients with BPH, but clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of EA and its cotreatment with electronic moxibustion (EM) in patients who have been prescribed alpha blockers have yet to be reported. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of EA and EM.
methodsTwenty-eight patients diagnosed with BPH were randomized to treatment group (TG, n = 14) or control group (CG, n = 14). The TG continued to use the previously prescribed alpha blocker and received the cotreatment of EA and EM 3 times a week for 6 weeks. The CG continued to use the previously prescribed alpha blocker alone for 6 weeks. The primary outcome was the mean change in the international prostate symptom score (IPSS) from baseline to week 6. The secondary outcomes were IPSS at week 3 and 12, clinical relevance, IPSS life satisfaction, EuroQol-Five dimensions, average urinary flow rate, maximum urinary flow rate, and prostate volume.
resultsThe IPSS decreased at all time points with a statistically significant difference between the 2 groups (3W: P = .0313; 6W: P = .0010; 12W: P = .0304). Based on the minimal clinically important difference (MCID, 3 points), there were significant differences between the TG and the CG at week 3, 6, and 12 (3W: P = .0461; 6W: P = .0123; 12W: P = .0216). Significant group × week interaction effects were found for the IPSS score (P = .0018), as determined from analyses using repeated measures analysis of variance. There were no significant differences between the 2 groups in IPSS life satisfaction, EuroQol-Five dimensions, average urinary flow rate, maximum urinary flow rate, and prostate volume.
conclusionEA and its cotreatment with EM might have a beneficial effect as an adjunct therapy in improving LUTS in patients with BPH. Large-scale randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm the effectiveness and safety of EA and its cotreatment with EM.
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.