ReviewIntegrative cancer therapies
An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Clinical Studies of Acupuncture for Cancer Pain.
Review in Integrative cancer therapies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy and Safety of Different Acupuncture Treatments for Cancer-Related Pain: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Integrative cancer therapiesPooled it
- 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
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) and meta-analyses (MAs) for the use of acupuncture for cancer pain have been increasing, but the evidence has not been systematically and comprehensively assessed. We aimed to perform an overview of the evidence quality of SRs/MAs of acupuncture for improving cancer pain.
methods8 databases were systematically searched to identify SRs/MAs of acupuncture for improving cancer pain. The A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2), Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), and Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), respectively, were applied by 2 independent reviewers to evaluate the methodological quality, risk of bias, reporting quality, and evidence quality.
resultsA total of 14 SRs/MAs were included in the present study. By AMSTAR-2, two reviews were rated as having high methodological quality, while 12 were given a critically low rating. All SRs/MAs in Phase 1, Domain 1, and Domain 4, according to ROBIS, were at low risk. Furthermore, 4 reviews in Domain 2, twelve reviews in Domain 3, and ten SRs/MAs in Phase 3, were rated as having low risk of bias. With reporting quality, some reporting flaws were identified in the topic of protocol and registration, additional analyses, and search strategy. According to GRADE, the level of evidence quality was "critically low" to "moderate," and risk of bias was the most common downgraded factor.
conclusionAcupuncture may be beneficial in improving cancer pain. However, due to the identified limitations and inconsistent findings, we recommend further rigorous, and more standardized SRs/MAs to provide strong evidence for definitive conclusions.
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.