ArticleFrontiers in public health2025
Acupuncture for smoking cessation: an overview of systematic reviews.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: An increasing number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigated various forms of acupuncture for smoking cessation; however, their findings remain inconsistent, and substantial controversy persists regarding both its efficacy and safety. Objectives: This overview aimed to synthesize the outcome evidence presented in existing systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture for smoking cessation, appraise the methodological quality of the included SRs, and re-evaluate the primary outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted in eight databases from inception to December 31, 2024, with no language restrictions. Two independent reviewers screened the eligible studies. The methodological quality of the included SRs was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2). The Risk of Bias in Systematic Reviews (ROBIS) tool was used to evaluate potential bias. Reporting quality was assessed with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 checklist. The certainty of evidence from the SRs was rated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach. After removing duplicate randomized controlled trials, we re-conducted meta-analysis for the primary outcomes using R software version 4.4.2 and TSA Viewer version 0.9.5.10, and performed trial sequential analysis (TSA) to examine the reliability and robustness of the findings. Results: This overview included 10 SRs, covering 74 RCTs. Using AMSTAR 2, ROBIS, and PRISMA 2020 for evaluation, we found that the methodological quality, risk of bias, and reporting quality of the 10 SRs were unsatisfactory. The quality of evidence evaluated by GRADE was mostly rated as low or critically low; however, acupuncture appeared to contribute to improved abstinence rates. In the updated meta-analysis, acupuncture showed superiority over sham acupuncture for short-term abstinence (RR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.08, 1.73, Conclusion: Although the evidence for acupuncture in smoking cessation remains insufficient, acupuncture appears to improve short-term abstinence rates. However, substantial heterogeneity and methodological limitations were identified. TSA suggested a potential risk of false-positive findings, highlighting the need for further high-quality research. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD42023473514, identifier CRD42023473514.
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.