ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Fu's Subcutaneous Needling for Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of Fu's subcutaneous needling (FSN) for pain management using randomized controlled trials (RCTs), to provide evidence-based guidance for clinical practice and future research. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted of PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Cochrane Library, Clinical Trials.gov, and Web of Science databases for RCTs published from inception to May 15, 2025. To be included, studies were required to compare FSN with control interventions for treating pain in adults. Study quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool, and meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4. Outcomes included pain intensity, and pain-related and functional outcomes. Results: Eight RCTs (n = 519 participants) were included. Compared with controls, FSN was more effective at reducing pain, with a pooled mean difference (MD) of -1.14 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.34 to -0.95; P < 0.001) on the visual analog scale. Subgroup analyses confirmed sustained benefits at the 15-day follow-up (MD = -1.79; P < 0.001) and 1-month follow-up (MD = -1.08; P < 0.001) time-points. Secondary outcomes included significant improvements in the Oswestry Disability Index (MD = -6.10; P < 0.001), range of motion (MD = 9.11; P < 0.001), Lysholm score (standardized MD [SMD] = 0.66; P < 0.001), and 36-Item Short-Form Survey (SMD = 0.78; P < 0.001). Adverse events were mild and transient, with no serious adverse effects reported. Conclusion: FSN is an effective and safe intervention for pain management, and results in greater pain reduction and functional improvement than other non-pharmacological interventions. Future studies should prioritize multicenter RCTs with standardized protocols, extended follow-up, and diverse populations to confirm the long-term efficacy of FSN for pain management.
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.