www.nature.com/scientificreports
OPEN
received: 04 February 2016 accepted: 07 July 2016 Published: 29 July 2016
Acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain: A meta-analysis and metaregression of sham-controlled randomized clinical trials Qi-ling Yuan1,*, Peng Wang2,*, Liang Liu1, Fu Sun1,3, Yong-song Cai1, Wen-tao Wu1, Mao-lin Ye4, Jiang-tao Ma4, Bang-bang Xu4 & Yin-gang Zhang1,4 The aims of this systematic review were to study the analgesic effect of real acupuncture and to explore whether sham acupuncture (SA) type is related to the estimated effect of real acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain. Five databases were searched. The outcome was pain or disability immediately (≤1 week) following an intervention. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sixty-three studies (6382 individuals) were included. Eight condition types were included. The pooled effect size was moderate for pain relief (59 trials, 4980 individuals, SMD −0.61, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.47; P
OPEN
received: 04 February 2016 accepted: 07 July 2016 Published: 29 July 2016
Acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain: A meta-analysis and metaregression of sham-controlled randomized clinical trials Qi-ling Yuan1,*, Peng Wang2,*, Liang Liu1, Fu Sun1,3, Yong-song Cai1, Wen-tao Wu1, Mao-lin Ye4, Jiang-tao Ma4, Bang-bang Xu4 & Yin-gang Zhang1,4 The aims of this systematic review were to study the analgesic effect of real acupuncture and to explore whether sham acupuncture (SA) type is related to the estimated effect of real acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain. Five databases were searched. The outcome was pain or disability immediately (≤1 week) following an intervention. Standardized mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals were calculated. Meta-regression was used to explore possible sources of heterogeneity. Sixty-three studies (6382 individuals) were included. Eight condition types were included. The pooled effect size was moderate for pain relief (59 trials, 4980 individuals, SMD −0.61, 95% CI −0.76 to −0.47; P
