ArticleMedical acupuncture2024
Laser Acupuncture Versus Electroacupuncture for Nonsevere Carpal Tunnel Syndrome: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Medical acupuncture, 2024. 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.
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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Electroacupuncture (EA) is commonly employed for carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS), whereas laser acupuncture (LA) seems to offer a safer and more convenient alternative. Nevertheless, transitioning from EA to LA requires evidence. This study aims to compare their clinical efficacy and safety. Methods: A randomized single-blind controlled trial was conducted on 76 CTS patients, with 38 patients assigned to receive EA (EA group) and 38 assigned to receive LA (LA group). Acupoints selected for both groups included PC4, PC6, PC7, PC8, LI4, LI10, LI11, HT3, HT7, and LU10. The intervention consisted of 20 sessions over 4 weeks. Symptom Severity Scale (SSS) and Functional Status Scale (FSS) scores, patients' satisfaction, and adverse events (AEs) were recorded. Results: The LA group demonstrated significantly greater reductions in SSS and FSS scores than the EA group, with mean differences (MDs) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) of -4.29 (-5.40 to -3.18) and -0.73 (-1.24 to -0.24), respectively, after 4 weeks of treatment. Complete symptom, functional recovery, and both were also significantly better in the LA group (relative risks [RR] [95% CI]: 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], 1.58 [1.24 to 2.02], and 14.00 [1.94 to 101.22], respectively). Overall treatment effectiveness and satisfaction levels were notably higher in the LA group. Six patients experienced AEs in the EA group, whereas no AEs were reported in the LA group. Conclusions: In this study, the findings indicate that LA may offer a safer and more effective alternative to EA. Further studies with longer follow-up periods and assessment of electrodiagnostic changes after intervention are needed.
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.