SynthesisMedicine2025
Effectiveness of acupotomy combined with nerve block therapy for cervical radiculopathy: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Medicine, 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.
- Feasibility, Safety, and Effectiveness of Ultrasound-Guided Acupotomy Treatment for Degenerative Cervical Radiculopathy: A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of pain research · 2026Trial
- Acupotomy Combined with Celecoxib and Zhenggu Shenjin Capsules for Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Propensity Score-Matched Retrospective Cohort Study.Journal of pain research · 2026Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of combining acupotomy with nerve block therapy (NBT) for cervical radiculopathy (CR) compared to NBT alone.
methodsA comprehensive search was conducted across multiple databases to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the combined use of acupotomy and NBT for CR. Studies were assessed for risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool. Data were synthesized through meta-analysis where applicable.
resultsFour RCTs with a total of 540 patients were included. Meta-analysis showed that the combination of acupotomy and NBT significantly improved the total effective rate compared to NBT alone (risk ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval 1.08-1.24, P < .0001). However, no significant pain reduction was observed based on the pain visual analog scale (SMD - 2.55, 95% confidence interval -5.32 to 0.22, P = .07), and there was substantial heterogeneity among the included studies (I² = 99%). The overall risk of bias was high, and safety data were limited, with only one study reporting adverse events.
conclusionThe findings suggest that acupotomy combined with NBT may enhance treatment effectiveness for CR, particularly in terms of overall therapeutic response. However, due to the high risk of bias, study heterogeneity, and insufficient safety reporting, further well-designed, large-scale RCTs with long-term follow-ups are needed to establish robust clinical evidence.
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.