ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Acupuncture Therapy for Sciatica: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Acupuncture shows potential as a treatment for sciatica, but the credibility and consistency of supporting evidence remain unclear, warranting critical and comprehensive evaluation. This overview is aims to assess the reliability, adequacy, and limitations of current evidence on acupuncture for sciatica using a multidimensional approach and further examine its efficacy through a secondary meta-analysis. Methods: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) meeting PICOS criteria were identified from eight databases by two independent reviewers. Evidence reliability was assessed using AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, PRISMA-A, and the GROOVE tool across four domains: methodological quality, bias risk, reporting accuracy, and study overlap. Duplicate randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were excluded based on the Corrected Covered Area (CCA) analysis, and a secondary meta-analysis was conducted. Sensitivity analyses and funnel plots assessed robustness and publication bias. Results: Seven SRs/MAs were included. AMSTAR-2 revealed significant methodological flaws, particularly due to a lack of protocol pre-registration. ROBIS assessments showed a high risk of bias, with most studies relying on single-database searches and lacking comprehensive strategies. PRISMA-A indicated generally low reporting quality, especially regarding descriptions of acupuncture sensation. The GROOVE tool yielded a CCA of 7.23%, reflecting moderate study overlap. The secondary meta-analysis showed that acupuncture significantly improved treatment effectiveness (RR = 1.23; 95% CI: 1.20-1.26; Conclusion: Although current evidence is limited by methodological flaws, publication bias, and poor reporting quality, acupuncture shows promising clinical potential for sciatica. High-quality, rigorously designed studies are needed to confirm its efficacy.
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.