ReviewAnnals of general psychiatry2025
Efficacy of acupuncture for generalized anxiety disorder: a systematic review.
Review in Annals of general psychiatry, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Acupuncture for irritable bowel syndrome comorbid with anxiety and depression: study protocol for a placebo run-in, randomized clinical trial.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of acupuncture for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), with a particular focus on acupuncture alone and acupuncture combined with medication, compared with medication or sham acupuncture.
methodsWe searched MEDLINE/PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Data, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), and ClinicalTrials.gov up to August 31, 2025. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for GAD were independently screened and extracted by two reviewers following strict quality assessment. Risk of bias was evaluated using the RoB 2.0 tool, evidence certainty was assessed with the GRADE approach, and meta-analyses were conducted with RevMan 5.3. Subgroup analyses were performed according to comparator type and acupuncture parameters (treatment modality, duration, frequency, and sessions).
resultsA total of 41 RCTs involving 3,209 participants were included. Meta-analysis showed that acupuncture alone (MD -1.79, 95% CI -2.69 to -0.88; 19 studies) and acupuncture combined with medication (MD -2.26, 95% CI -3.05 to -1.48; 20 studies) were superior to medication alone in reducing Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAMA) scores. Acupuncture also outperformed sham acupuncture (MD -3.46, 95% CI -4.76 to -2.16; 3 studies). Significant improvements were also observed in total effective rate, Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS) scores, and Clinical Global Impression-Efficacy Index (CGI-EI), with lower rates of adverse events in the acupuncture groups. Subgroup analyses suggested that a treatment duration of 4-6 weeks was associated with better outcomes; for stand-alone acupuncture, a frequency of seven sessions per week was more effective than medication, while for combined therapy, a frequency of 2-4 sessions per week was more effective than medication. DISCUSSIONS: This meta-analysis indicates that acupuncture, either as a monotherapy or in combination with medication, may provide superior efficacy to medication and sham acupuncture, with fewer adverse events. However, most included studies were rated as having "some concerns" in risk of bias by RoB 2.0, and GRADE assessment suggested low or very low certainty of evidence for the primary outcome (HAMA). Egger's test indicated no significant publication bias in HAMA. Further high-quality, large-scale RCTs are required to confirm these findings. REGISTRATION: The protocol of the review was registered in PROSPERO (CRD42015016033).
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.