Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39643890›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2024

The blinding status and characteristics in acupuncture clinical trials: a systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

Tinglan Liu, Lijiao Jiang, Shuangjing Li, Shuyang Cheng, Rong Zhuang, Zhiyi Xiong, Chongyang Sun, Baoyan Liu, Haoran Zhang, Shiyan Yan

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Tinglan LiuSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Lijiao JiangThe Fourth Clinical Medical College, Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Guangdong, China.
Shuangjing LiSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Shuyang ChengSchool of Mathematical Sciences, Capital Normal University, Beijing, China.
Rong ZhuangSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Zhiyi XiongSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Chongyang SunSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Baoyan LiuInstitute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine, China, Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Haoran ZhangCollege of Preschool Education, Beijing Youth Politics College, Beijing, China. ranzihuai425@163.com.
Shiyan YanSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China. yanshiyan@bucm.edu.cn.ORCID 0000-0002-8693-5530

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSham acupuncture is a widely accepted control in acupuncture clinical trials. Given the nature of acupuncture, it is warranted to assess the blinding of sham-controlled trials. Despite the sham acupuncture design having been widely used, the overall blinding of sham acupuncture and the characteristics of blinding assessment in acupuncture trials are unclear. This research aims to assess the blinding status of acupuncture clinical trials and explore the blinding assessment characteristics in acupuncture trials.

methodsThis meta-analysis included all the acupuncture clinical trials published in English that performed blinding assessments and reported the results. We searched PubMed, Embase, and Web of Science for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from inception to April 2024. The primary outcome is Bang's Blinding Index (Bang's BI) and 95% credibility interval (CrI) was pooled using a Bayesian hierarchical model. The study adheres to the PRISMA guidelines.

resultsSixty-four eligible studies published from 1999 to 2024 were included. The mean of Bang's BI was - 0.24 (95% CrI - 0.34 to - 0.14, tau

conclusionOverall blinding status in current acupuncture clinical trials shows a majority correctly guessing for the verum group and opposite guessing for the sham group. However, in some acupuncture trials, the blinding of sham acupuncture might be compromised. Factors such as the Asian population, penetrating sham needling, and querying participants about their group assignment during the study increase the risk of unblinding and warrant careful consideration in sham acupuncture control design. Furthermore, researchers should closely monitor the blinding status of sham acupuncture and transparently report details of blinding assessments. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42023403595.

Indexed as

Acupuncture TherapyBayes TheoremDouble-Blind MethodHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignAcupuncture clinical trialsBang’s Blinding IndexBlinding assessmentBlinding status

Identifiers

PMID39643890
PMCPMC11624600

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.