Trial reportPloS one2024
Effectiveness of electroacupuncture and acupuncture in alleviating cold hypersensitivity in the hands and feet: A randomized controlled trial.
Trial report in PloS one, 2024. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveCold hypersensitivity in the hands and feet(CHHF) is a common condition that reduces the quality of life and causes daily discomfort. The current treatments are primarily pharmacological. This study aimed to expand treatment options by comparing the efficacy of electroacupuncture (EA) and acupuncture (AC) with that of no treatment (control).
methodsA three-group randomized controlled trial was conducted with 72 women diagnosed with cold hypersensitivity in the hands and feet, as confirmed by subjective symptoms and objective temperature differences. Participants were randomly assigned to the EA, AC, or control groups. Outcome measures included hand and feet visual analog scale (VAS) scores, temperature changes measured using a non-contact thermometer, and World Health Organization Quality of Life-BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) scores assessed at pretreatment (T0), posttreatment (T1), and follow-up (T2). Repeated measures ANOVA and 2-way mixed-model ANOVA were used to evaluate group, time, and interaction effects.
resultsBoth the EA and AC groups showed significant improvements in hand and feet VAS and WHOQOL-BREF scores compared with those of the control group posttreatment (T1). Notably, the EA group demonstrated sustained benefits at follow-up (T2), with significant reductions in feet VAS scores and positive changes in several WHOQOL-BREF domains. Interaction effects between group and time were observed, indicating that the changes in the EA and AC groups were meaningfully different form those in the control group. The control group also exhibited a statistically significant reduction in the VAS scores at follow-up (T2), likely due to the natural variability of cold extremity symptoms and psychological factors.
conclusionThis study demonstrated that EA and AC are effective in alleviating the symptoms of CHHF and enhancing the quality of life compared to no treatment. EA showed long-lasting effects than those of AC, suggesting its potential to regulate the autonomic nervous system. These findings provide a foundation for expanding non-pharmacological treatment options for CHHF and offer clinical guidance on the use of EA and AC.
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.