ArticleMedical acupuncture2025
Pressure Probes for Auriculotherapy Diagnosis: Are They Accurate?
Article in Medical acupuncture, 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: Point detection is a pillar for auriculotherapy diagnosis. However, the pressure probes' accuracy is yet to be established. Objective: To assess the accuracy of commercially available pressure probes for auriculotherapy's diagnosis. Methods: Four probes were tested against a semi-analytic bubble level and calibrated precision pressure scale. Forty peaks of pressure from each device were recorded. The raw and the normalized peaks (by probes' length and diameter) were analyzed. Results: The absolute and the relative trials consistency were considered reliable, but inter-device differences were found for all pairwise comparisons among devices. The ideal preset pressure of 250 g was not achieved by any device, with effect sizes ranging from moderate to huge. Conclusions: All devices showed higher values compared with 250 g. The device's results disagree compared to each other, impairing the reliability and the diagnosis. Aside from the within-device absolute and relative consistency, the results suggest there is still no gold-standard device to assertively assess the auricular tender points.
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.