Background Electroacupuncture (traditional acupuncture combined with electrical stimulation) is used to treat various medical conditions. However, the lack of standardized sham electroacupuncture options (placebo controls) poses a challenge in ensuring the validity of the results gained from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). This study presents a protocol for a systematic review to evaluate the methods and validity of sham electroacupuncture used in RCTs.
Methods To provide evidence for establishing an optimal control model for sham electroacupuncture, a systematic review will be conducted by searching major English language electronic databases (including PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials) for studies published up to May 2024. RCTs that utilized sham electroacupuncture as a control group will be included. Two independent reviewers will screen the studies and extract the data, and the quality of the selected studies will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool 2. Frequency analysis will be conducted, and to assess blinding in RCTs the Blinding Index will be reported. This systematic review protocol is registered with PROSPERO (no.: CRD42024542514).
Results /Conclusion: This systematic review will provide a comprehensive analysis of the methods and reliability of sham electroacupuncture in RCTs and thus help identify current practices and gaps. The findings may contribute to the development of standardized sham electroacupuncture controls and improve the design RCT in the future which will facilitate treatment validation of electroacupuncture.
Background Labor pain is among the most intense forms of pain, significantly impacting physical and psychological well-being. Although epidural anesthesia is effective, it has side effects and limited accessibility. Electroacupuncture (EA) offers a low-risk alternative. This systematic review and meta-analysis assessed the safety and effectiveness of EA in relieving labor pain and duration.
Methods Randomized controlled trials comparing EA with standard treatments, including epidural anesthesia, were identified through database searches up to August 2024. The primary outcome was pain reduction (assessed using the visual analog scale), and the secondary outcomes were labor duration (1st and 2nd stages), Apgar scores, and adverse effects.
Results In the analysis there were 10 randomized controlled trials (involving 1,498 women in labor) included in this review. EA statistically significantly improved both the level of pain and reduced labor duration compared with those women who received standard treatments (p < 0.001). Apgar scores were assessed in 3 studies and determined that the physical condition of the delivered babies was not statistically significantly different between EA and standard treatment for labor pain. Study protocol indicated the recording of adverse effects in one of the ten studies. Adverse events in that study recorded mild localized discomfort (1.89%, n = 1).
Conclusion EA reduced labor pain and duration, and demonstrated its potential as an alternative to the conventional approaches for managing labor pain. The limited data suggest EA is likely safe, but further research is needed to confirm its safety profile.
Background Evidence mapping presents the current status of evidence on a specific field. The "Evidence Map of Acupuncture" published in 2014 gave an overall picture of the evidence on acupuncture treatments for various conditions/diseases. In this study, evidence in 2024 for the effect of acupuncture was reassessed.
Methods The systematic reviews (SRs) on acupuncture for the 43 conditions/diseases where evidence was previously unclear or potentially effective in the "Evidence Map of Acupuncture" 2014 were searched in the PubMed and the Cochrane Library, and included SRs up to February, 2024. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations assessment in the included SRs was used for assessing the confidence level in the evidence of each condition.
Results When compared with the results of the "Evidence Map of Acupuncture" 2014, the average number of randomized controlled trials included in a SR increased from 11 to 19.5 by 2024. However, the confidence level showed an overall decrease. The reasons for unclear evidence were mainly methodological limitations such as poor research design, small sample size and small number of studies, and the results of the 2024 reassessment did not show a significant difference in the reasons compared with the "Evidence Map of Acupuncture" 2014.
Discussion To improve clinical evidence for acupuncture, simple repetition and increasing the number of new randomized controlled trials does not seem to be effective. To reduce redundancy, large scaled studies should be conducted, and a new critical appraisal tool for acupuncture is needed to avoid unfair evaluation of risk of bias in acupuncture research.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
A Review of Key Research and Engagement in 2023–2024 John McDonald, Jonquil W. Pinto, Lin Ang, Sandro Graca Journal of Integrative and Complementary Medicine.2025; 31(4): 313. CrossRef
Robust Evidence in Integrative Medicine: Innovations, Challenges, and Future Directions Ye-Seul Lee, Myeong Soo Lee, David Moher, In-Hyuk Ha, Jian-Ping Liu, Terje Alræk, Stephen Birch, Tae-Hun Kim, Yoon Jae Lee, Juan V.A. Franco, Jeremy Y. Ng, Holger Cramer Perspectives on Integrative Medicine.2024; 3(3): 162. CrossRef
Background Low-level laser treatment (LLLT) is used to treat low back pain (LBP) however, its effects on lumbar disc herniation (LDH) remain unclear. The safety and effectiveness of LLLT for LDH was determined using a systematic review of randomized clinical trials.
Methods Studies on LLLT in adults with LDH were identified from 12 worldwide databases. A risk of bias assessment and a meta-analysis with categorization according to the type of control used (inactive, active, or add-on) was performed. The quality of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation.
Results The quantitative analyses included five studies. LLLT was significantly more effective at treating LDH [leg pain visual analog scale (VAS) mean difference (MD): -1.90, 95% confidence interval (CI): -2.01, -1.80, I2 80%; LBP VAS MD: -0.79, 95% CI: -0.87, -0.71, I2 80%] than inactive controls (placebo or sham). The quality of the evidence ranged from “low” to “very low.” As an add-on to usual care, LLLT significantly improved pain intensity and disability compared with usual care (leg pain VAS MD: -2.52, 95% CI: -2.65, -2.40, I2 97%; LBP VAS MD: -1.47, 95% CI: -1.58, -1.36; Oswestry Disability Index MD: -4.10, 95% CI: -4.55, -3.65, I2 6%). However, the quality of the evidence ranged from “moderate” to “low.”
Conclusion LLLT significantly improved outcomes compared with the inactive controls, but was not more effective than usual care for LDH. In combination with usual care, LLLT was significantly more effective than usual care alone highlighting the potential of LLLT.
Background To provide clinicians with reliable evidence an umbrella review of systematic reviews (SRs) on Chuna manual therapy (CMT) for musculoskeletal disorders was performed to synthesize important outcomes.
Methods There were eight databases (Cochrane, EMBASE, MEDLINE, CNKI, KMBASE, KISS, Scienceon, and OASIS) searched as well as the international database Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews in health and social care until August 2023. SRs of randomized controlled trials involving patients with musculoskeletal conditions, limited to interventions explicitly labeled as “Chuna” or “Tuina” in English, Chinese, or Korean language were retrieved. Two reviewers independently conducted selection and data extraction, and SR quality was assessed using A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews tool (low, medium, or high quality).
Results This review included 32 SRs, categorized by cervical (n = 4), thoracolumbar (n = 7), upper extremity (n = 5), lower extremity (n = 9), and other musculoskeletal disorders (n = 7). Quality assessments determined that three SRs were of “high” quality, two were “low” quality, and the remaining SRs were of “medium” quality. CMT was consistently reported to demonstrate superior outcomes: an effective rate was observed in 17 of 19 SRs, CMT was effective at reducing pain in 12 of the 16 SRs, and functional outcomes of CMT were observed in 8 of 12 SRs. No serious adverse events were reported.
Conclusion CMT may be a safe and effective treatment for various musculoskeletal disorders based on the limited number of studies and the low quality of included SRs.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Integrative Korean medicine for recurrent lumbar disc herniation after coronavirus disease vaccination: A case report and literature review Ah-Ra Koh, Hyun-Woo Kim, Young-Jin Lee, Hye-Jeong Jo, Go-Eun Chae, Dong-Woo Kim, In-Hyuk Ha, Doori Kim Medicine.2025; 104(1): e41079. CrossRef
Comparative Effectiveness of Non-Pharmacological and Pharmacological Treatments for Non-Acute Lumbar Disc Herniation: A Multicenter, Pragmatic, Randomized Controlled, Parallel-Grouped Pilot Study Doori Kim, Jee Young Lee, Yoon Jae Lee, Chang Sop Yang, Chang-Hyun Han, In-Hyuk Ha Journal of Clinical Medicine.2025; 14(4): 1204. CrossRef
Integrative Korean medicine treatment without surgery for the management of subacute radiating pain attributed to vertebral artery loop formation: A case report and literature review Jung Min Yun, Dong Hyun Go, Sook-Hyun Lee Medicine.2025; 104(9): e39483. CrossRef
Reporting Overviews of Reviews: PRIORitizing a Reporting Guideline Lisa Hartling, David Moher Perspectives on Integrative Medicine.2024; 3(2): 65. CrossRef
Effectiveness and Safety of Pharmacopuncture on Inpatients with Tension Headache Caused by Traffic Accidents: A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial Ja-Yean Son, Kangmoo Goo, Na-young Kim, Seok-Gyu Yang, Dong Hwan Lee, Yu-Ra Im, Oh Bin Kwon, Hyun-Woo Cho, Sang Don Kim, Doori Kim, In-Hyuk Ha Journal of Clinical Medicine.2024; 13(15): 4457. CrossRef
Background Per-oral pharmacological medication is a representative treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and has improved over several guidelines. However, limitations of long-term use of these medications including adverse events, led to the introduction and utilization of complementary and alternative treatments for RA. Several herbal medicine decoctions have been reported to be effective and safe; a recent study introduced Duantengyimu-tang (DTYMT). Regardless of the pharmacological effects of the DTYMT components, there are concerns about its safety. Therefore, this systematic review (SR) will focus on the effectiveness and safety of DTYMT treatment for RA.
Methods Searches for randomized controlled trials using DTYMT treatment for RA will be performed using multiple electronic databases, manual searches, and emails (if necessary). A summary will be written using data on outcome measurements of the study participants, interventions, adverse events, and risk of bias in the studies. The primary outcomes will be disease activity scores including effective rate, tender joints, swollen joints, and morning stiffness. The secondary outcomes will include adverse events and blood tests for RA (erythrocyte sedimentation rate, C-reactive protein, and rheumatoid factors). This SR will use Review Manager software to perform a meta-analysis, the Cochrane Collaboration “risk of bias” tool, and determine the quality of evidence using the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation method.
Results This SR will investigate the clinical effectiveness and safety of DTYMT treatment in patients with RA.
Conclusion This SR aims to be informative for patients and clinicians in clinical practice, researchers, and policymakers in managing RA.
Background Aromatherapy has been reported to have a positive effect on various health conditions. While these studies show positive results, many of them have limited evidence. The aim of this study was to develop a protocol to evaluate all systematic reviews (SRs) that have evaluated the efficacy of aromatherapy (for any health condition) as a therapeutic treatment (protocol registration number INPLASY202280089).
Methods We will include aromatherapy through different therapeutic application methods such as inhalation, massage, and bathing. Seven international databases (including PubMed, AMED, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library), and three Korean medical databases (Korean Studies Information, Research Information Service System, KoreaMed), will be searched. The SR process, including study selection, data extraction, and assessment, will be performed by two independent reviewers. Methodological assessment will be performed using AMSTAR-2.
Discussion The benefits of aromatherapy for health management are evaluated to provide useful information to patients and therapists and inform decisions on further studies on this topic.