Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32256643›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2020

Efficacy Comparison of Different Acupuncture Treatments for Functional Dyspepsia: A Systematic Review with Network Meta-Analysis.

Jinhuan Zhang, Yongfeng Liu, Xingxian Huang, Yirong Chen, Liyu Hu, Kai Lan, Haibo Yu

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 4% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Moxibustion Regulates Gastrointestinal Motility via HCN1 in Functional Dyspepsia Rats.Medical science monitor : international medical journal of experimental and clinical research · 2021
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Clinical efficacy ofAmerican journal of translational research · 2021
    Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Jinhuan ZhangFourth Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Yongfeng LiuShenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Xingxian HuangShenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Yirong ChenFourth Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Liyu HuFourth Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Kai LanFourth Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Haibo YuShenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shenzhen 518033, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3100-0786
Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine · CNShenzhen Pingle Orthopedic Hospital · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAcupuncture has been found to be an effective treatment for functional dyspepsia (FD). Currently, several types of acupuncture have been developed but it is not clear which type is suitable for FD. Currently, doctors often rely on experience to decide which form of acupuncture to apply. Herein, we employed network meta-analysis (NMA) to compare the effectiveness of various methods of acupuncture in the treatment of functional dyspepsia.

methodsWe searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture treatments for functional dyspepsia in seven databases; PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, Wanfang database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, Chinese Science and Technique Journals (CQVIP), and Chinese Biomedical Database (CBM) from the date of database inception to October 10, 2019. Cochrane risk of bias tool was used to analyze the risk of bias of the included RCTs. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed with RevMan 5.3 and the network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was performed using the frequentist framework.

resultsA total of 35 studies involving 3301 patients and 10 interventions were eligible for this study. NMA results showed that five types of acupuncture (manual acupuncture, acupoint application, moxibustion, acupoint catgut embedding, and warm acupuncture alone) all were superior to prokinetics (itopride, mosapride, and domperidone) and sham acupuncture in terms of improving the symptoms of functional dyspepsia. Specifically, manual acupuncture and electroacupuncture were more effective in improving the MOS 36 Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) compared to itopride and sham acupuncture, and electroacupuncture was the best among the three acupuncture therapies (acupuncture, electroacupuncture, and acupoint catgut embedding). Moxibustion and manual acupuncture were more effective in improving Nepean Dyspepsia Life Quality Index (NDLQI) compared to itopride, domperidone, and sham acupuncture; moxibustion ranks first among the three acupuncture therapies (acupuncture, electroacupuncture, moxibustion).

conclusionsThese results showed that manual acupuncture alone was the most effective therapy for FD. It should, therefore, be considered as an alternative treatment for FD patients who are unresponsive to prokinetics or intolerant to the adverse effects of prokinetics. We recommend further multiple centers and high-quality RCT studies to confirm the present findings.

Identifiers

PMID32256643
PMCPMC7106911
OpenAlexW3010775279

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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 Socratic graph.