PofoliaShared via Pofolia

Archives of Internal Medicine· 2012· Meta-analysis

Acupuncture for Chronic Pain

Andrew J. Vickers, Angel M. Cronin, Alexandra C. Maschino, George Lewith et al.

Short summary

A large meta-analysis of 17,922 patients found acupuncture to be superior to both sham and no-acupuncture controls for four chronic pain conditions, indicating it is more than a placebo.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Key points

  • Acupuncture significantly reduced pain compared to sham and no-acupuncture controls across four chronic pain conditions.
  • Effect sizes for pain reduction were 0.23 SD vs. sham for back/neck pain and 0.55 SD vs. no-acupuncture.
  • Results remained robust across sensitivity analyses, including those addressing publication bias.
  • The study analyzed individual patient data from 29 eligible RCTs with adequate allocation concealment.

AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Although acupuncture is widely used for chronic pain, there remains considerable controversy as to its value. We aimed to determine the effect size of acupuncture for 4 chronic pain conditions: back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, chronic headache, and shoulder pain. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acupuncture for chronic pain in which allocation concealment was determined unambiguously to be adequate. Individual patient data meta-analyses were conducted using data from 29 of 31 eligible RCTs, with a total of 17 922 patients analyzed. RESULTS: In the primary analysis, including all eligible RCTs, acupuncture was superior to both sham and no-acupuncture control for each pain condition (P < .001 for all comparisons). After exclusion of an outlying set of RCTs that strongly favored acupuncture, the effect sizes were similar across pain conditions. Patients receiving acupuncture had less pain, with scores that were 0.23 (95% CI, 0.13-0.33), 0.16 (95% CI, 0.07-0.25), and 0.15 (95% CI, 0.07-0.24) SDs lower than sham controls for back and neck pain, osteoarthritis, and chronic headache, respectively; the effect sizes in comparison to no-acupuncture controls were 0.55 (95% CI, 0.51-0.58), 0.57 (95% CI, 0.50-0.64), and 0.42 (95% CI, 0.37-0.46) SDs. These results were robust to a variety of sensitivity analyses, including those related to publication bias. CONCLUSIONS: Acupuncture is effective for the treatment of chronic pain and is therefore a reasonable referral option. Significant differences between true and sham acupuncture indicate that acupuncture is more than a placebo. However, these differences are relatively modest, suggesting that factors in addition to the specific effects of needling are important contributors to the therapeutic effects of acupuncture.

The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Archives of Internal Medicine, 2012 · DOI ↗

TakeawaysPremium
Ask the paperFree account

Continue with a free account

Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.

Continue free on the web

Sign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.

On your phone:

Field: Complementary and alternative medicine

Complementary and alternative medicineMedicine