← Diet, exercise & lifestyle × glycemic control

SynthesisFrontiers in endocrinology2025

Comparative effects of acupuncture and metformin on insulin sensitivity in women with polycystic ovary syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Yun Wang et al.PubMed ↗Full text ↗Publisher ↗

  • Metformin plus sham acupuncturelooks bad hereHigher HOMA-IR values.Randomised, large.
  • Acupuncture plus placebolooks good hereLower fasting blood sugar.Randomised, large.
  • Acupunctureno clear effectNo clear effect on FINS, no clear effect on insulin resistance, no clear effect on body mass index.Nothing cleared the noise.
  • Electroacupunctureno clear effectNo clear effect on reducing HOMA-IR values.Nothing cleared the noise.

What the trial testedrandomised · 1,248 people · 2025

Randomised vs acupuncture plus placebo

Raised HOMA-IR values

+0.49+0.02 to +0.96

metformin plus sham acupuncture vs acupuncture plus placebo

As reported

difference 0.49, 95% CI 0.02–0.96 · the paper's word: reduction in HOMA-IR values

Randomised vs metformin plus sham acupuncture

Lowered fasting blood sugar

−0.38−0.57 to −0.19

acupuncture plus placebo vs metformin plus sham acupuncture

As reported

difference −0.38, 95% CI −0.57 to −0.19 · the paper's word: reduction in FPG

Range includes no effect

No clear effect on FINS

+0.17−0.38 to +0.71

acupuncture vs metformin

As reported

difference 0.17, 95% CI −0.38 to 0.71 · the paper's word: reduction in FINS

Range includes no effect

No clear effect on insulin resistance

+0.17−0.18 to +0.52

acupuncture vs metformin

As reported

difference 0.17, 95% CI −0.18 to 0.52 · the paper's word: reduction in HOMA-IR

+4 more in the walkthrough ↓

Who was studied, and how

1,248people with type 2 diabetes, in this paper

The trial randomly assignedassigned by chance

acupuncture
metformin

No clear effect on FINS+0.17

No clear effect on insulin resistance+0.17

randomised

The trial randomly assignedassigned by chance

metformin plus sham acupuncture
acupuncture plus placebo

Raised HOMA-IR values+0.49

randomised

the abstract, start to end

… that the reduction in HOMA-IR [SMD = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.18, 0.52)] and FINS [SMD = 0.17, 95% CI (-0.38, 0.71)] values …

However, reductions in BMI [SMD = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.88, 0.58)], WHR [SMD = -0.15, 95% CI (-0.88, 0.58)], and FPG [SMD = -0.19, 95% CI (-0.40, 0.02)] were …

… in reducing HOMA-IR values [SMD = 0.49, 95% CI (0.02, 0.96)] with a statistically significant difference; acupuncture plus placebo treatment had a greater advantage in reducing FPG [SMD = -0.38, 95% CI (-0.57, -0.19)] with a …

… that only Electroacupuncture (SMD = -0.27, 95% CI [-1.37, 0.83]) and Abdominal acupuncture (SMD = -0.13, 95% CI [-1.19, 0.94]) …

← favours treatmentfavours comparator →
could be chance
Reduction in FINSacupuncture vs metformin
0.17−0.38 to 0.71
Reduction in HOMA-IRacupuncture vs metformin
0.17−0.18 to 0.52
Reduction in BMIacupuncture vs metformin
−0.15−0.88 to 0.58
Reduction in FPGacupuncture vs metformin
−0.19−0.40 to 0.02
Reduction in HOMA-IR valuesmetformin plus sham acupuncture vs acupuncture plus placebo
0.490.02–0.96
Reduction in FPGacupuncture plus placebo vs metformin plus sham acupuncture
−0.38−0.57 to −0.19
Reducing HOMA-IR valuesElectroacupuncture vs Metformin
−0.27−1.37 to 0.83
Reducing HOMA-IR valuesAbdominal acupuncture vs Metformin
−0.13−1.19 to 0.94
MetforminDiet, exercise & lifestyleGlycemic controlBody weight & composition
1 / 4

6 papers cite it

2025
2026
this paperpooled itcites it
Full record →Abstract, authors, funding and every citing paper · PMID 40607225