ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Comparative efficacy of acupuncture, venesection, and physical therapy on chronic low back pain outcomes: a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Dose-Response Relationship Between Acupuncture Parameters and Pain Reduction in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of pain research · 2026Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Chronic low back pain (CLBP) imposes considerable financial and social burden with poor response to medical and surgical treatments. Alternatively, acupuncture and venesection(Fasd) are traditionally used to alleviate nociceptive and musculoskeletal pains. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and the safety of acupuncture and venesection on CLBP and patient functionality. Methods: The current study was a single-blinded, randomized clinical trial with balanced allocation, conducted in the Department of Physical Medicine & Rehabilitation Medicine, in 2022. One hundred five CLBP patients who had no back pain-attributable structural or major diseases were randomly allocated into three parallel arms and received either physical therapy (PTG), acupuncture (APG), or venesection (VSG). Pain severity and functional aspects were evaluated using the visual analogue scale (VAS) and Oswestry disability index (ODI) during the study. VAS and ODI scores were defined as the primary outcomes. Results: Ninety-five patients were reviewed in the final analysis (PTG=33, APG=30, VSG=31). Demographic data showed equal group distribution. Statistical analysis showed all procedures had reduced VAS score immediately after the first session, after the last session, and after follow-up; however, APG and VSG values were significantly lower ( Conclusion: Considering the pain and functional scores, both acupuncture and venesection can reproduce reliable results. Acupuncture and venesection both have sustained effects on pain and daily function of the patients even after treatment termination, while physical therapy had more relapse in pain and functional limitations.
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.