SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2026
Efficacy of acupuncture therapies for polycystic ovary syndrome: a network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) is a prevalent gynecological disorder that significantly impairs quality of life and reduces patient confidence in treatment. The efficacy of current Western pharmacological therapies is limited. Acupuncture has shown promise in the management of PCOS, but comparative research on different acupuncture modalities remains scarce. Methods: PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, and the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database were comprehensively searched from database inception to 18 August 2024. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed the risk of bias in the eligible studies. Network meta-analysis was conducted using STATA 15.1 and R 4.4.1. Results: Ninety-two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving 15 acupuncture-based interventions or combinations were included. According to the surface under the cumulative ranking curve (SUCRA) analysis, for total efficacy (TE), electroacupuncture (99.03%), filiform needle + thunder fire moxibustion (74.77%), and filiform needle with electroacupuncture (64.02%) ranked the highest. For follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH) regulation, fire needle (90.99%) ranked first, followed by filiform needle + electroacupuncture (75.29%) and filiform needle + warming needle moxibustion + electroacupuncture (66.76%). For luteinizing hormone (LH) regulation, warming needle moxibustion (86.75%) ranked first, followed by warming needle moxibustion + electroacupuncture (72.76%) and filiform needle alone (69.55%). For testosterone reduction, filiform needle + moxibustion (96.53%) ranked first, followed by catgut embedment in acupoint + moxibustion (85.64%) and electroacupuncture (82.33%). For LH/FSH ratio improvement, catgut embedment in acupoint (77.73%), warming needle moxibustion + electroacupuncture (72.87%), and filiform needle + warming needle moxibustion + electroacupuncture (66.39%) ranked the highest. For adverse events, fire needle (91.69%) ranked highest, followed by Western medicine (83.17%) and catgut embedment in acupoint (64.08%). Conclusion: No statistically significant differences were observed between single and combined acupuncture therapies. However, modalities incorporating electrical, thermal, or sustained stimulation appear to be more effective. Given the methodological limitations of the included studies, high-quality, rigorously designed RCTs are warranted to validate these findings. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO, CRD42024609903.
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.