SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
Comparative effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for primary insomnia: a systematic review and network meta-analysis of randomized trial.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This study employed a Bayesian network meta-analysis (NMA) to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of various acupuncture therapies compared to conventional medication, sham acupuncture, and other interventions for primary insomnia. Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, VIP Chinese Scientific Journals, Wanfang, and China Biology Medicine were searched from inception to July 16, 2025. Literature quality was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool v 2.0 (RoB 2.0). Statistical analyses were performed using Stata 18 and R 4.5.1. Results: In total, 80 studies involving 7,791 patients were included. Among these, 60.0% were rated as low RoB, 26.3% as unclear RoB, and 13.8% as high RoB. Statistical analysis showed that, compared with conventional medication, abdominal acupuncture (Weighted Mean Difference (MD) -3.73; 95% Credible Interval (95% CrI) [-6.88, -0.55]), acupuncture (MD -1.96; 95% CrI [-2.64, -1.27]), and catgut embedding (MD -3.08; 95% CrI [-5.18, -0.93]) significantly reduced the short-term Pittsburgh sleep quality index (PSQI) scores. Compared with acupuncture, warm acupuncture (MD -2.55; 95% CrI [-4.88, -0.21]) significantly reduced the long-term PSQI scores. Compared with sham acupuncture, abdominal acupuncture (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) -3.06; 95% CrI [-6.08, -0.09]) and acupuncture (SMD -2; 95% CrI [-3.05, -0.98]) significantly reduced anxiety scores; meanwhile, acupuncture (SMD -1.52; 95% CrI [-2.79, -0.26]) significantly reduced depression scores. Compared with conventional medication, acupuncture (Relative Risk (RR) 1.19; 95% CrI [1.12, 1.27]) and catgut embedding (RR 1.25; 95% CrI [1.05, 1.52]) significantly improved clinical efficacy rates. However, no significant differences were observed in the relative effectiveness among different acupuncture therapies. The cumulative sample size included in the safety analysis was 1,772, from which 99 adverse events were reported (5.59%). No significant differences were detected across interventions; based on the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA), wrist-ankle needle may show higher potential safety. Conclusion: Currently, no single intervention has emerged as optimal across all outcomes. Abdominal acupuncture, catgut embedding, electroacupuncture, and wrist-ankle needle ranked relatively high for certain outcomes based on SUCRA and showed potential advantages. However, given the potential publication bias, variations in acupuncture protocols, and insufficient long-term follow-up data, further validation is required. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251040450, Identifier: CRD420251040450.
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.