ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Efficacy and Safety of Ultrasound-Guided Acupotomy for Chronic Spinal Musculoskeletal Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomised Controlled Trials.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Chronic spinal musculoskeletal pain (CSP) is a prevalent and disabling condition affecting hundreds of millions worldwide. Ultrasound-guided acupotomy (UGA) has emerged as a minimally invasive intervention for CSP. This study aimed to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of UGA for CSP through a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs). Patients and Methods: The study protocol was prospectively registered with PROSPERO (CRD420251156718). A systematic search was conducted in PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, and VIP Database from inception to August 2025 for RCTs. Primary outcomes included pain intensity assessed by the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS), functional disability assessed by the Neck Disability Index/Oswestry Disability Index (NDI/ODI) and the Japanese Orthopaedic Association (JOA) score, and overall clinical response rate. Secondary outcomes included recurrence rate and incidence of adverse events. Methodological quality was assessed using the modified Jadad scale, Cochrane risk of bias tool, and GRADE system. Meta-analysis, subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis, and publication bias assessment were performed. Results: A total of 32 RCTs involving 2669 participants were included, all conducted in China and published between 2014 and 2025, covering spinal conditions including cervical spondylosis, lumbar disc herniation, cervicogenic headache, ankylosing spondylitis, and related disorders. UGA showed significant advantages over control groups in reducing pain intensity (VAS: SMD = -0.80, 95% CI: -0.97 to -0.64) and improving functional outcomes (NDI/ODI: SMD = -0.99, 95% CI: -1.36 to -0.63; JOA score: SMD = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.43 to 1.12), along with a higher overall response rate (RR = 1.15, 95% CI: 1.12-1.19). A trend toward reduced recurrence was observed (RR = 0.63, 95% CI: 0.27-1.43), though this did not reach statistical significance. Adverse events in the UGA group were mild and less frequent (0%-13.8%) than controls (0%-51.7%). Subgroup analysis revealed that add-on UGA therapy yielded optimal outcomes with low heterogeneity. Evidence quality was moderate for pain and response rate, and low for other outcomes. It should be noted that all 32 included RCTs were conducted in China, which may limit the generalisability of these findings to other geographic and clinical contexts. Conclusion: UGA appears to be an effective and safe intervention for CSP, with particular benefit observed when used as an add-on therapy. However, given the moderate to low certainty evidence, high heterogeneity, and predominant risk of bias due to lack of blinding, these results should be interpreted with caution. Further high-quality multicentre RCTs with standardised protocols are warranted to confirm these findings.
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.