ReviewToxins2025
Bee Venom Acupuncture in Traditional Korean Medicine: A Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.
Review in Toxins, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Research hotspots and trends on bee venom therapy: A bibliometric and visualization analysis from 2004 to 2024.Medicine · 2026Review
- Efficacy and Spinal Noradrenergic Mechanisms of Contralateral Melittin Acupuncture Against Paclitaxel-Induced Peripheral Neuropathic Pain in Rats.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
- Clinical Evidence of Bee Venom Acupuncture for Ankle Pain: A Review of Clinical Research.Toxins · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Bee venom acupuncture (BVA) is used in traditional Korean medicine (TKM) for various diseases, but its evaluation within clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) has not been comprehensively reviewed. This study aimed to review TKM-CPGs to characterize the range of conditions for which BVA is recommended, summarize the level of evidence and recommendation grades, and assess the factors influencing the grades. Eighteen TKM-CPGs, including 30 BVA-related recommendations, were identified. Data on targeted diseases/symptoms, treatment protocols, evidence levels, and recommendation grades were extracted. The CPGs recommended BVA for musculoskeletal and neurological disorders in standalone or combined therapy. Most of the evidence for BVA recommendations was evaluated with low to moderate levels based on randomized controlled trials. The grades of recommendations were mostly B or C, indicating that BVA is advisable or potentially beneficial. Although the CPGs offer some guidance on treatment protocols for BVA, there remains a lack of detailed specifications, and we need to conduct additional research to provide evidence. Also, the heterogeneity of recommendations across different CPGs presents a challenge in establishing consistent clinical guidelines. Future research should focus on generating high-quality evidence and standardizing treatment regimens to support more robust recommendations for BVA in TKM clinical practice.
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.