SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Fu's subcutaneous needling for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Commentary: Fu's subcutaneous needling for knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acupuncture has been listed as an alternative treatment in several knee osteoarthritis (KOA) international guidelines. Fu's subcutaneous needling (FSN), as a novel acupuncture therapy, has shown greater potential for treating KOA. The objective of this systematic review is to compare the efficacy and safety of FSN to routine acupuncture therapy (RAT) for KOA. Methods: China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP, China Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Medical, Embase, PubMed, Ovid, and the Cochrane Library were searched from inception to March 2025, and randomized controlled trials on FSN for KOA were included. The primary outcomes were total efficacy rate, Visual Analog Scale (VAS) pain scores and Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Arthritis Index (WOMAC) scores. Literature quality was assessed using Cochrane risk-of-bias tool 1.0. Heterogeneity among trials was assessed using the Cochrane Results: A total of 14 studies were included (1,186 patients, with 594 in FSN group and 592 in RAT group). Primary outcomes: The total efficacy rate of the FSN group was significantly higher than that of the RAT group [OR = 3.83, 95% CI (2.36, 6.91), Conclusion: Compared to RAT for KOA, FSN demonstrates superior efficacy in alleviating pain, reducing inflammation, and improving joint dysfunction. Further high-quality studies are needed to determine the long-term efficacy of FSN. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42024595903.
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.