ArticleBMC complementary medicine and therapies2026
The design and reporting of sham acupuncture and its association with the efficacy in acupuncture randomized controlled trials for migraine.
Article in BMC complementary medicine and therapies, 2026. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn current trials of acupuncture for migraine treatment, the heterogeneity in therapeutic outcomes has been noted, which may be closely tied to the use of diverse sham acupuncture designs. This paper aims to evaluate the reporting quality of sham acupuncture and assess the potential impact of the consistency for intervention procedure between sham and true acupuncture groups on efficacy size in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for migraine.
methodsRCTs with sham acupuncture as a control in migraine were searched in four English and four Chinese databases from inception to May 2024. Based on the SHARE checklist, the distribution of reported items and reporting rates were investigated. The meta-regressions were conducted to assess the potential impact of the consistency of intervention procedures between sham and true acupuncture groups on efficacy size of acupuncture for migraine.
resultsEvaluation of the 46 included studies revealed that a significant proportion of item descriptions were incomplete, such as the information informed or explained to patients (Item 5, 4(8.70%)), relevant operation training information (Item 6.2, 6(13.04%)) and Communication between practitioner and patient (Item 3.3, 8(17.39%)). Meanwhile, the Basic manipulation techniques (β=-0.76), Times of manipulation (β=-0.34), Time point of manipulation (β=-0.34), Frequency of manipulation (β=-0.34) and Duration of manipulation per time (β=-0.34) significantly impact efficacy of acupuncture on migraine.
conclusionsThe reporting quality of sham acupuncture in the acupuncture RCTs focusing on migraine was inadequate. Some details and context factors of sham acupuncture were often not reported. The differences of manipulation between sham and true acupuncture may be significant factors affecting the effect of acupuncture for migraine. In future acupuncture trials, the manipulation-related factors should be considered in the design of sham acupuncture and the specific reporting guidelines for sham acupuncture like SHARE should be adopted.
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.