ArticleClinical traditional medicine and pharmacology2025
Baseline predictors of responders to auricular point acupressure in chronic low back pain.
Article in Clinical traditional medicine and pharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
- Pampa biome plant extracts and flavonoids show antiviral activity against Bovine Herpesvirus and Bovine Viral Diarrhea Virus.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Pain Phenotyping Indicators in Older Adults with Chronic Low Back Pain: A Secondary Analysis of a Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background: Chronic low back pain (cLBP) is a major cause of disability, with varied patient responses to treatments. Auricular point acupressure (APA) has shown potential as a non-pharmacological intervention, but individual responses may differ significantly. Objective: This study aimed to determine the predictability of baseline characteristics, including functional disability, symptom severity, and treatment expectancy, on clinically significant responses to APA in reducing pain and improving function. Methods: A secondary analysis was performed using data from a randomized controlled trial with 263 cLBP patients. Participants were randomly assigned to targeted APA (T-APA), non-targeted APA (NT-APA), or to a control group. APA responders were defined as those with at least a 1.5-point reduction in pain intensity or a 2.5-point improvement in the Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ). Predictors of response were assessed using logistic regression and machine learning models, including the Random Forest and Support Vector Machine (SVM). Results: Baseline pain, physical function, sleep disturbance, and treatment expectancy were key predictors. The Random Forest model had the highest accuracy for T-APA; however, logistic regression performed best in NT-APA. SVM was most accurate in the control group, with predictive accuracy varying by group (AUC 60.9%-80%). The Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) method was found to be overly aggressive, often eliminating important variables. Conclusion: This study highlights the variability in APA treatment responses for cLBP. While predictive models provide useful insights, further research with larger datasets is needed to improve prediction accuracy and generalizability, enhancing personalized treatment approaches for cLBP.
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.