SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Meta-analysis of acupuncture combined therapies for amblyopia: efficacy and safety insights.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2025. 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Acupuncture, a traditional Chinese medicine therapy, is widely used for the management of amblyopia. This study aimed to perform a meta-analysis of the efficacy and safety of acupuncture combined with conventional treatments for amblyopia. Methods: We searched eight databases for relevant studies published before December 31, 2024. Subsequently, the retrieved literature underwent a rigorous screening process based on pre-established inclusion and exclusion criteria. Thereafter, the basic information, outcome data, and risk of bias of the included studies were statistically analyzed. RevMan5.3 was employed to perform meta-analysis, sensitivity analysis, and assessment of publication bias. Additionally, GRADEpro3.6 was utilized to assess the quality of evidence for the outcomes. Results: Ten trials involving 918 eyes were included. The meta-analysis demonstrated that, compared with to the conventional treatment, the acupuncture combined with conventional treatment significantly improved the clinical efficacy rate (relative risk [RR] 1.31, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.21-1.43, Conclusion: Compared to conventional treatment, acupuncture combined with conventional treatment effectively improved visual acuity in amblyopia patients, although it may increase the risk of adverse events. Considering that these adverse events are mild, acupuncture still has the potential to serve as a complementary treatment for amblyopia. However, these findings need to be further validated through large-scale and high-quality studies. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251063432, identifier CRD420251063432.
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.