ArticleSICOT-J2026
Acupuncture vs usual care for chronic low back pain: a systematic review and meta-analysis of immediate and intermediate effects.
Article in SICOT-J, 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
introductionChronic low back pain (CLBP) is a leading global cause of disability. Acupuncture is increasingly integrated into its management, yet its standalone effectiveness compared to usual care remains uncertain. This review aimed to assess the immediate (≤2 weeks) and intermediate (2 weeks-6 months) effects of acupuncture versus usual care on pain and disability in adults with CLBP.
methodsA systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was conducted, searching MEDLINE, CENTRAL, Scopus, and PEDro through November 2024. Eligible studies compared acupuncture (body, electroacupuncture, scalp) to usual care (physiotherapy, education, medication, and exercise) in adults with CLBP. Outcomes included pain and disability at immediate and intermediate follow-up. Data were pooled using a random-effects model. Risk of bias was assessed with the PEDro scale, and GRADE was used to evaluate evidence certainty. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to explore clinical and methodological heterogeneity and test the reliability of findings.
resultsA total of 2.956 records were identified, and 8 RCTs (n = 1,123 participants) were included in this study. Acupuncture significantly reduced pain at both immediate (SMD = -0.73, 95% CI -1.04 to -0.42) and intermediate (SMD = -1.13, 95% CI -1.82 to -0.43) timepoints. Disability also improved at both follow-ups (immediate: SMD = -0.49, 95% CI -0.68 to -0.30 and intermediate: SMD = -0.79, 95% CI -1.18 to -0.41). Sensitivity analyses confirmed effect robustness, especially in electroacupuncture subgroups. Certainty of evidence ranged from low to very low due to risk of bias, inconsistency, and suspected publication bias. DISCUSSION: Acupuncture appears more effective than usual care for reducing pain and disability in adults with CLBP, but the certainty of evidence is low, warranting cautious interpretation.
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.