Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 30, 2025
Author Spotlight: Development of a Standardized Acupuncture Tool Inspired by Advanced Techniques for Improved Safety and Precision
Published on: January 10, 2025
Factors Associated with the Magnitude Of acUpuncture treatment effectS (FAMOUS): a meta-epidemiological study of
Wei-Juan Gang1,2, Wen-Cui Xiu1,2, Lan-Jun Shi1,2
1Institute of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Beijing, China.
Objective:
To identify factors and assess to what extent they impact the magnitude of the treatment effect of acupuncture therapies across therapeutic areas.
Data Source:
Medline, Embase, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Database, VIP Database, and China Biology Medicine disc, between 2015 and 2019.
Study Selection:
The inclusion criteria were trials with a total number of randomised patients larger than 100, at least one patient-important outcome and one of two sets of comparisons.
Data Analysis:
The potential independent variables were identified by reviewing relevant literature and consulting with experts. We conducted meta-regression analyses with standardised mean difference (SMD) as effect estimate for the dependent variable. The analyses included univariable meta-regression and multivariable meta-regression using a three-level robust mixed model.
Results:
1304 effect estimates from 584 acupuncture randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were analysed. The multivariable analyses contained 15 independent variables . In the multivariable analysis, the following produced larger treatment effects of large magnitude (>0.4): quality of life (difference of adjusted SMDs 0.51, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.77), or pain (0.48, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.69), or function (0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.61) vs major events. The following produced larger treatment effects of moderate magnitude (0.2-0.4): single-centred vs multicentred RCTs (0.38, 95% CI 0.10 to 0.66); penetration acupuncture vs non-penetration types of acupuncture (0.34, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.53); non-pain symptoms vs major events (0.32, 95% CI 0.12 to 0.52). The following produced larger treatment effects of small magnitude (<0.2): high vs low frequency treatment sessions (0.19, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.35); pain vs non-pain symptoms (0.16, 95% CI 0.04 to 0.27); unreported vs reported funding (0.12, 95% CI 0 to 0.25).
Conclusion:
Patients, clinicians and policy-makers should consider penetrating over non-penetrating acupuncture and more frequent treatment sessions when feasible and acceptable. When designing future acupuncture RCTs, trialists should consider factors that impact acupuncture treatment effects.
