ReviewNature and science of sleep2025
Is Sham Acupuncture Equally Effective for Primary Insomnia? A Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis.
Review in Nature and science of sleep, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effectiveness of acupuncture for cancer-related fatigue: a systematic reviews and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2026Pooled it
- Beyond "One-Size-Fits-All": Evidence and Applicability in Selecting Sham Acupuncture for Insomnia RCTs [Response to Letter].Nature and science of sleep · 2025Article
- No One-Size-Fits-All Placebo: Advocating Context-Driven Placebo Control Selection in Acupuncture Randomized Controlled Trials for Insomnia [Letter].Nature and science of sleep · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the efficacy differences between acupuncture and sham acupuncture in adult primary insomnia through Bayesian network meta-analysis, analyze the impact of different types of sham acupuncture on efficacy, and explore the basis for the control setting. Methods: A literature search of seven databases, including PubMed and Embase, until April 23, 2025, included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing AT with noninvasive sham acupuncture (NISA), superficial acupuncture (SA), and non-acupuncture therapy (NAT) for treating PI in adults. The statistical analyses were conducted using R (version 4.4.1) and Stata (version 15.1). The protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD420251012912). Results: This meta-analysis incorporated 33 RCTs encompassing 3004 participants, with most studies originating from China. The results showed that at the treatment endpoint and after 4 weeks, AT significantly improved subjective sleep quality (Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, PSQI) compared to SA and NISA, exceeding the minimum clinically important difference (MCID: 2.5 points). Specifically, at the endpoint, AT vs SA (MD: -3.66; 95% CI: -4.48 to -2.84) and AT vs NISA (MD: -4.35; 95% CI: -5.67 to -3) were significant, while differences among SA, NISA, and NAT were not. Based on the surface under the cumulative rank curve (SUCRA), AT ranked first (99.9%), followed by SA (47.8%), NAT (31.9%), and NISA (20.4%). No significant differences were found between AT, NISA, and SA regarding objective sleep parameters. Conclusion: AT significantly improved subjective sleep quality in patients with PI, though its impact on objective sleep measures was limited. When designing RCTs of acupuncture for PI, NISA is recommended as the sham acupuncture control. However, due to geographical limitations, the study results may be difficult to generalize. Future research should focus on monitoring objective sleep parameters and conducting international, multicenter RCTs involving diverse cultural populations.
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.