Trial reportJournal of pain research2026
Effects of Different Electroacupuncture Frequencies in Young Adults with Chronic Neck Pain: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic neck pain (CNP) is a common musculoskeletal disorder and a major contributor to disability. Although acupuncture is beneficial for CNP, evidence on the optimal treatment frequency, particularly in young adults, remains limited. Objective: To compare the clinical efficacy of different electroacupuncture treatment frequencies in young adults with CNP. Methods: In this single-center, three-arm randomized controlled trial, 90 young adults with CNP were randomized 1:1:1 to three sessions per week (TSWA), one session per week (OSWA), or a waiting-list control (WL). Both acupuncture groups received bilateral electroacupuncture at Jingbailao (EX-HN15) and Jianzhongshu (SI15) for 30 min per session for 4 weeks. Participants and the treating acupuncturist were not blinded; outcome assessors and statisticians were blinded. The primary outcome was the Northwick Park Questionnaire (NPQ). Secondary outcomes were VAS, SF-MPQ, PPT, and PTO. Analyses followed the intention-to-treat principle with multiple imputation. Results: All 90 randomized participants were included in the analysis. Significant group-by-time interactions were observed for all outcomes (all P < 0.001). At week 4, both acupuncture groups were superior to WL. TSWA was also superior to OSWA for NPQ (P = 0.0196), VAS (P = 0.0042), SF-MPQ (P = 0.0200), and PTO (P = 0.0038), but not PPT (P = 0.0869). At 4-week follow-up, TSWA remained superior to OSWA only for VAS (P = 0.007); NPQ and SF-MPQ no longer differed significantly between groups. Conclusion: Both treatment frequencies improved pain, functional disability, and selected pain-threshold outcomes compared with WL. Three sessions per week produced greater short-term benefit, but its longer-term advantage was limited and was retained only for VAS at follow-up. Trial Registration: International Traditional Medicine Clinical Trial Registry, ITMCTR2025001658.
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.