ArticleMedical acupuncture2024
Electroacupuncture at Traditional Acupoints or Myofascial Trigger Points for Chronic Nonspecific Low Back Pain: High or Alternated Frequency? A Double-Blinded Randomized Controlled Trial.
Article in Medical acupuncture, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Visual analysis of research hotspots and trends of external therapies in traditional Chinese medicine for chronic pain.Frontiers in medicine · 2025Pooled it
- Latent myofascial trigger point injection improves symptoms in functional gastrointestinal disorders.World journal of gastrointestinal surgery · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chronic nonspecific low back pain (cNLBP) can be effectively treated by electroacupuncture (EA) at traditional acupoints (TAPs) and myofascial trigger points (MTrPs). However, the optimal type and frequency of stimulation (alternated frequency [AF] and high frequency [HF]) remain unclear. This study aimed to explore this. Methods: A double-blinded randomized controlled trial was conducted with four treatment groups: EA using AF at MTrPs (MTP-AF group), HF at MTrPs (MTP-HF group), AF at TAPs (TAP-AF group), and HF at TAPs (TAP-HF), each with 40 middle-aged cNLBP patients. The AF was 2/100 Hz and HF was 100 Hz. Pain-visual analog scale (pain-VAS), paracetamol requirement, Oswestry disability index (ODI) score, global improvement, and adverse effects (AEs) were monitored. Results: After 4 weeks, groups of EA targeting MTrPs and TAPs with the same frequency showed no significant differences. Groups using AF demonstrated significantly superior pain-VAS and ODI percentage score reductions compared with HF groups, extending at least 4 weeks post-EA. All groups showed consistent results in paracetamol use, global improvement, and safety. Subgroup analysis indicated that EA with AF at MTrPs provided better results in patients aged ≥60-65 years. Conclusions: EA at MTrPs and TAPs demonstrated similar effects on cNLBP. However, an AF proves more effective than an HF, potentially maintaining this trend in the short term. Older patients may respond better to EA at MTrPs with AF. Future studies may explore combined MTrPs and TAPs for cNBLP treatment with a broader age range and more diverse demographic groups.
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.