SynthesisFrontiers in cardiovascular medicine2025
Acupuncture combined with multiple therapies for angina pectoris: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in cardiovascular medicine, 2025. 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
Objective: Acupuncture combined with multiple treatment modalities has been widely employed for treating angina pectoris. This paper compared the efficacy of acupuncture combined with multiple treatment modalities for angina pectoris by network meta-analysis (NMA). Methods: As of November 2023, this study searched eight electronic databases for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture combined with multiple modalities for the treatment of angina pectoris based on antianginal therapies. Primary efficacy indicators included the number of angina episodes and duration of episodes, and secondary indicators included clinical efficacy based on symptom improvement and electrocardiographic efficacy based on ST-segment and T-wave improvement. The Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 (RoB 2.0) was used for risk of bias assessment. A random-effects Bayesian NMA was performed using R (version 4.3.1) and Stata (version 16.0). Results: 46 RCTs were enrolled, with 3976 patients with angina pectoris. In reducing the number of angina episodes, acupuncture [MD: -3.79; 95% CrI (-6.34, -1.31)] and acupuncture + TCM [MD: -3.06; 95% CrI (-5.49, -0.62)] were superior to antianginal therapies, with acupuncture having the best efficacy (SUCRA: 78.2%). In shortening the duration of angina episodes, electroacupuncture (EA) + traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) was the most effective (SUCRA: 95.1%), superior to antianginal therapies [MD: -5.04; 95% CrI (-9.18, -0.89)], adjunctive therapy [MD: 7; 95% CrI (1.58, 12.39)], rehabilitation therapy [MD: -5.38; 95% CrI (-10.75, -0.05)], and warm acupuncture + adjunctive therapy [MD: -6.71; 95% CrI (-13, -0.48)]. In terms of clinical efficacy, thumbtack needling had the best efficacy (SUCRA: 82.1%), superior to TCM [RR: 1.3; 95% CrI (1.02, 1.69)] and antianginal therapies [RR: 0.75; 95% CrI (0.6,0.91)]. In electrocardiographic efficacy, EA showed the best efficacy (SUCRA: 92.9%), superior to antianginal therapies [RR: 0.52; 95% CrI (0.35, 0.71)] and acupuncture [RR: 0.62; 95% CrI (0.39, 0.91)]. Conclusion: Acupuncture performs best in reducing anginal episodes; EA + TCM is the most effective in shortening the duration of anginal episodes; thumbtack needling is the most effective in clinical efficacy; and EA shows optimal results in electrocardiographic efficacy. To further validate these findings, multicenter and large-sample RCTs are needed. Systematic Review Registration: PROSPERO [CRD42024505456].
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.