ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Comparative Efficacy of Acupuncture-Based Interventions for Cervicogenic Headache: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.
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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: To compare the relative efficacy of acupuncture-based interventions for cervicogenic headache and identify approaches that may improve overall efficacy rate and pain intensity. Methods: PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and CNKI were searched from inception through September 26, 2026 for randomized controlled trials. Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. A frequentist random-effects network meta-analysis synthesized direct and indirect evidence. Outcomes were the study-defined overall efficacy rate and pain intensity measured with the Visual Analog Scale (VAS). Treatment rankings, sensitivity analyses, small-study effects, and confidence in network estimates using the Confidence in Network Meta-Analysis (CINeMA) framework were evaluated. Results: Twenty-nine randomized trials were included. All 29 contributed to the overall efficacy rate network, and 16 trials (1300 participants) contributed to the VAS network. Compared with conventional acupuncture, needle-knife therapy, Fu's subcutaneous needling (FSN), fire needling, warm acupuncture, and special manual acupuncture significantly improved the overall efficacy rate. Needle-knife therapy ranked highest, followed by FSN and fire needling. For pain intensity, fire needling produced the largest reduction versus conventional acupuncture (MD, -1.88; 95% CI, -2.70 to -1.05), followed by FSN, special manual acupuncture, and warm acupuncture. Needle-knife therapy did not significantly reduce VAS scores compared with conventional acupuncture. Sensitivity analyses generally supported the findings, although several estimates were influenced by individual studies. According to CINeMA, confidence in the network estimates ranged from moderate to very low for both outcomes, and no comparison achieved high confidence. Conclusion: Fire needling and FSN showed the most consistently favorable estimates across the two outcomes. Needle-knife therapy may improve the overall efficacy rate, but its advantage for pain relief remains uncertain. Because none of the evaluated comparisons achieved high confidence according to CINeMA, larger multicenter randomized trials with standardized outcomes and longer follow-up are needed.
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.