ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Different Acupuncture Treatments for Myofascial Pain Syndrome in Neck or Shoulder: A Network Meta-Analysis Based on Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Myofascial Pain Syndrome (MPS) is a prevalent musculoskeletal condition. Acupuncture therapy demonstrates significant advantages due to its unique mechanism of action. However, there are notable discrepancies in the evidence levels among various acupuncture therapies, and direct comparative data between different treatments remain scarce. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating acupuncture therapy for MPS in Neck or shoulder were systematically retrieved from CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, CBM, PubMed, EMbase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science up to April 30, 2025. Network Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 16.0. Results: This study included 29 RCTs, involving a total of 2424 patients. Thirteen types of interventions were evaluated in the experimental groups: Fu's subcutaneous needling, Internal heat acupuncture, Electroacupuncture, Round-point needle, Needle knife, Moxibustion, Sunken cord, Acupoint injection, Conventional acupuncture + Moxibustion, Conventional acupuncture + Bloodletting, Conventional acupuncture + Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Conventional acupuncture + Tuina, and Conventional acupuncture + Exercise. Regarding the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) scores:The top three therapies based on the Surface Under the Cumulative Ranking Curve (SUCRA) values were Moxibustion (0.84), Internal heat acupuncture (0.84), and Conventional acupuncture + Moxibustion (0.79). In terms of efficacy, based on the SUCRA rankings for both outcome indicators, Internal heat acupuncture was identified as having the best overall effect. Conclusion: Based on the findings of this study, multiple acupuncture methods exhibit significant advantages over conventional acupuncture. Comprehensive analysis indicates that Internal heat acupuncture has the most favorable therapeutic effect.
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.