SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2022
Clinical efficacy of acupuncture for pain relief from renal colic: A meta-analysis and trial sequence analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Analgesic effectiveness of serratus anterior plane block in patients undergoing video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery: a systematic review and updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.BMC anesthesiology · 2023Pooled it
- Effect of acupressure on pain intensity and physiological indices in patients undergoing extracorporeal shock wave lithotripsy: a randomized double-blind sham-controlled clinical trial.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2024Trial
- Effect of Early-Intervention Acupuncture on Pain Relief Among Emergency Department Patients with Suspected Acute Renal Colic Due to Urinary Calculi: Study Protocol for a Randomized Clinical Trial.Journal of pain research · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: This meta-analysis aimed at investigating the efficacy of acupuncture for relieving renal colic and reducing the risk of analgesic-related complications. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the efficacy of acupuncture (acupuncture group) with conventional interventions (control group) were screened from MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane library databases, China Knowledge Network (CNKI), and Airiti Library till July 15, 2022. The primary outcome was the rate of effective pain relief (response rate), while secondary outcomes included the time of onset of pain relief, visual analog scale (VAS) at 30-60 min and risk of side effects. Results: Thirteen eligible studies involving 1,212 participants published between 1992 and 2021 were analyzed. Compared with the control group, patients receiving acupuncture had a higher overall response rate [risk ratio (RR) = 1.12, 95% CI: 1.05-1.19, Conclusion: Compared with conventional analgesic-based interventions, acupuncture can more efficiently relieve renal colic with fewer adverse effects. The limited number and quality of included studies warrant more clinical RCTs to support our findings. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/, identifier CRD42022346714.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.