ArticleFrontiers in medicine2025
Invasive laser acupuncture vs. electroacupuncture for non-specific chronic low back pain: protocol for a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Frontiers in medicine, 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
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study aims to evaluate the short-term efficacy of 650 nm invasive laser acupuncture (ILA) compared to conventional electroacupuncture (EA) in reducing pain in patients with non-specific chronic low back pain (NSCLBP). Method: This is a prospective, multicenter, randomized, single-blind, controlled trial. Ninety patients with NSCLBP will be recruited and randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either 650 nm ILA or EA. Treatments will be administered at the bilateral acupoints BL23, BL24, BL25, and GB30 for 10 min per session, twice weekly for 4 weeks (8 sessions in total). The primary outcome is the change in the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) score 1 week after treatment completion. Secondary outcomes include VAS scores at interim and follow-up time points, Oswestry Disability Index, European Quality of Life Five Dimension Five-Level Scale, and the proportion of responders. Safety assessments and adverse event monitoring will be conducted throughout the trial. Conclusion: This multicenter randomized controlled trial compares the effects of ILA and EA with the change in VAS as a primary efficacy endpoint in 90 patients with NSCLBP. This findings will provide clinical evidence of the comparative efficacy and safety of 650 nm ILA versus EA in patients with NSCLBP, supporting its potential as a viable non-pharmacological treatment option. Clinical trial registration: https://cris.nih.go.kr/cris/search/detailSearch.do?search_lang=E&focus=reset_12&search_page=M&pageSize=10&page=undefined&seq=29960&status=5&seq_group=29960, identifier KCT0010475.
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.