Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis

G. ter Riet; J. Kleijnen; P. Knipschild

doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90020-P

Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis

G. ter Riet, J. Kleijnen, P. Knipschild

Other Departments

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › Academic › peer-review

264 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

A literature search revealed 51 controlled clinical studies on the effectiveness of acupuncture in chronic pain. These studies were reviewed using a list of 18 predefined methodological criteria. A maximum of 100 points for study design could be earned in four main categories: (a) comparability of prognosis, (b) adequate intervention, (c) adequate effect measurement and (d) data presentation. The quality of even the better studies proved to be mediocre. No study earned more than 62% of the maximum score. The results from the better studies (greater than or equal to 50% of the maximum score) are highly contradictory. The efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain remains doubtful

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	1191-1199
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	43
Issue number	11
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90020-P
Publication status	Published - 1990

Access to Document

https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90020-P

Cite this

@article{81910200bc38461da6cfb6a6a100f763,

title = "Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis",

abstract = "A literature search revealed 51 controlled clinical studies on the effectiveness of acupuncture in chronic pain. These studies were reviewed using a list of 18 predefined methodological criteria. A maximum of 100 points for study design could be earned in four main categories: (a) comparability of prognosis, (b) adequate intervention, (c) adequate effect measurement and (d) data presentation. The quality of even the better studies proved to be mediocre. No study earned more than 62% of the maximum score. The results from the better studies (greater than or equal to 50% of the maximum score) are highly contradictory. The efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain remains doubtful",

author = "{ter Riet}, G. and J. Kleijnen and P. Knipschild",

year = "1990",

doi = "https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90020-P",

language = "English",

volume = "43",

pages = "1191--1199",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

number = "11",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Acupuncture and chronic pain: a criteria-based meta-analysis

AU - ter Riet, G.

AU - Kleijnen, J.

AU - Knipschild, P.

PY - 1990

Y1 - 1990

N2 - A literature search revealed 51 controlled clinical studies on the effectiveness of acupuncture in chronic pain. These studies were reviewed using a list of 18 predefined methodological criteria. A maximum of 100 points for study design could be earned in four main categories: (a) comparability of prognosis, (b) adequate intervention, (c) adequate effect measurement and (d) data presentation. The quality of even the better studies proved to be mediocre. No study earned more than 62% of the maximum score. The results from the better studies (greater than or equal to 50% of the maximum score) are highly contradictory. The efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain remains doubtful

AB - A literature search revealed 51 controlled clinical studies on the effectiveness of acupuncture in chronic pain. These studies were reviewed using a list of 18 predefined methodological criteria. A maximum of 100 points for study design could be earned in four main categories: (a) comparability of prognosis, (b) adequate intervention, (c) adequate effect measurement and (d) data presentation. The quality of even the better studies proved to be mediocre. No study earned more than 62% of the maximum score. The results from the better studies (greater than or equal to 50% of the maximum score) are highly contradictory. The efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of chronic pain remains doubtful

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90020-P

DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(90)90020-P

M3 - Article

C2 - 2147032

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 43

SP - 1191

EP - 1199

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

IS - 11

ER -