ArticleChinese medicine2025
Effects of acupuncture versus moxibustion on functional dyspepsia: a randomized clinical trial.
Article in Chinese 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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundFunctional dyspepsia (FD) is a prevalent gastrointestinal disorder, despite its high prevalence and impact on quality of life, effective treatments are limited. Acupuncture and moxibustion, two complementary therapies based on traditional Chinese medicine, have shown potential in alleviating FD symptoms. However, the differences of acupuncture and moxibustion in FD are unclear.
methodsA total of 144 eligible FD patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to either the acupuncture or moxibustion group to receive 20 treatment sessions. The primary outcome was the Short-Form Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (SFLDQ) total score after 4 weeks of treatment. Secondary outcomes included SFLDQ symptom-specific score, Nepean Dyspepsia Life Quality Index etc. Linear mixed-effects model was used for analyses.
resultsThere was no difference in SFLDQ total score after treatment with acupuncture compared with moxibustion (difference, 0.08[95% CI -0.634 to 0.794], p = 0.82), despite both groups were effective. However, the results of the secondary outcomes showed that compared with moxibustion, acupuncture was more effective in alleviating epigastric pain (difference, -0.318[95% CI -0.056 to -0.579], p = 0.017) and anxiety mood (difference, -2.893[95% CI -0.419 to -5.367], p = .022). On the other hand, moxibustion was more effective than acupuncture in reducing post-prandial fullness (difference, -0.3[95% CI -0.551 to -0.048], p = .02). The incidence of adverse events was similar between the groups.
conclusionsBoth the acupuncture and moxibustion groups showed significant improvement in FD symptoms. Although there were no significant differences between the groups at week 4 for the primary outcome, acupuncture exhibited greater improvement in addressing epigastric pain and reduction in anxiety symptoms while moxibustion demonstrated a larger reduction in improving post-prandial fullness. Choice of acupuncture and moxibustion should be tailored to the primary symptoms of FD patients to achieve optimal efficacy.
trial registrationChinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID: ChiCTR2100049496).
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.