Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40890765›Full record

ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2025

Differential placebo effect of sham acupuncture for chronic pain: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Renhong Wan, Qianhua Zheng, Xiaorui Zeng, Yalan Luo, Luqiang Sun, Shuai Chen, Fangli Luo, Yupeng Zhang, Ziyue Zhu, Xinyun Chen and 2 more

Abstract readNetwork Meta-Analysis
In one paragraph

Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

12 authors.

Renhong Wan *Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Qianhua Zheng *Acupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Xiaorui ZengAcupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yalan LuoLuzhou Longmatan TCM Hospital, Luzhou, China.
Luqiang SunAcupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Shuai ChenJiangxi University of Traditional Chinese Medicine Affiliated Hospital, Jiangxi, China.
Fangli LuoClinical Medical College of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, North Sichuan Medical College, Nanchong, China.
Yupeng ZhangAcupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Ziyue ZhuAcupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Xinyun ChenAcupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Yuanyuan ZhaoAcupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China.
Ying LiAcupuncture and Tuina School, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, China. liying@cdutcm.edu.cn.

Funding

the Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine "Xinglin Scholar" Team Project XKTD2022008the General Program of National Natural Science Foundation of China 82474659
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinical effects of acupuncture are often underestimated due to the placebo effect of sham acupuncture. While multiple sham acupuncture methods have been used in clinical practice, it is challenging to select the appropriate sham acupuncture technique due to the lack of head-to-head trials. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to compare the differential placebo effects of diverse sham acupuncture interventions, providing evidence-based guidance for selecting optimal placebo controls in clinical practice.

methodPubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Web of Science were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture for the treatment of chronic non-cancer pain (from inceptions to May 1, 2025). The primary outcome measure was pain variation, while secondary outcome measures included adverse events and the assessment of acupuncture blinding. Frequentist random-effect models were employed to perform indirect treatment comparison meta-analysis, and Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) was utilized to evaluate the level of evidence.

resultsA total of 45 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included, involving 7 sham acupuncture methods and 8287 participants. Regarding pain variation, the difference was noted between the waiting treatment group (mean difference 1.86 (95% confidence interval 1.36 to 2.35), SUCRA 97.4%; moderate confidence of evidence) and manual acupuncture group was most pronounced, followed by the difference between the acupoint and no penetration group (mean difference 1.14 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.55), SUCRA 73.6%; low confidence of evidence) and the nonacupoint and no penetration group (mean difference 1.00 (95% confidence interval 0.35 to 1.65), SUCRA 64.8%; low confidence of evidence). Additionally, the rate of adverse events was comparable among the aforementioned sham acupuncture groups, and the blinding procedure was successfully implemented in the trials.

conclusionsThe placebo effect of sham acupuncture is significant, among which the no penetration (acupoint or nonacupoint) groups exhibited the lowest placebo effect. Nevertheless, further head-to-head trials are warranted to obtain direct evidence. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO no. CRD42024535012.

Indexed as

Acupuncture TherapyChronic PainPlacebo EffectHumansPlacebosRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicPlacebosChronic painManual acupunctureMeta-analysisPlaceboRandomized controlled trialSham acupuncture

Identifiers

PMID40890765
PMCPMC12403578

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.