ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026
Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) collaborative care involving acupuncture for axial spondyloarthritis: 6-week exploratory results of a pragmatic randomised controlled trial.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 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
26 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: This pragmatic randomised controlled trial aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of a Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) collaborative model of care (TCMCMC) in patients with active axial spondyloarthritis (axSpA). Here, we present the week 6 analysis. Methods: Patients with active axSpA (Bath Ankylosing Spondylitis Disease Activity Index [BASDAI] ≥4), spinal pain ≥4 and inadequate response to nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs were randomised to receive either usual rheumatologic care (control) or TCMCMC (intervention, ie, usual rheumatologic care with TCM consultations and 10 acupuncture sessions). Spinal pain at week 6 was the primary outcome. Evaluation of other clinical and quality of life outcomes at week 6 was exploratory. Results: We recruited 139 participants, with 69 and 70 in the control and intervention groups, respectively. Median (IQR) age was 42.0 (33.0-56.0) years and 98 (70.5%) participants were male. Spinal pain and BASDAI scores were 0.75 (95% CI: -1.46, -0.03) and 0.71 (95% CI: -1.30, -0.13) points lower in the intervention than the control group (below the minimal clinically important differences of 1.5-1.6 and 1.3-1.4, respectively). Adjustments for baseline scores did not significantly alter the results. Ankylosing Spondylitis Quality of Life scores were 1.21 (95% CI: -2.30, -0.11) points lower in the intervention after adjusting for baseline scores. 36-item Short Form Health Survey Mental Component Summary was 4.30 (95% CI: -8.03, -0.56) lower in the intervention when unadjusted, but insignificant after adjusting for baseline. Other outcomes were not statistically significant. One adverse event was observed in each group. Conclusions: The intervention group had improved spinal pain, disease activity, and disease-specific quality of life, without significant safety risks.
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.