Table 11.
Number of studies | Design | Limitation | Inconsistency | Indirectness | Imprecision | Publication bias | Other considerations | Quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pain after treatment | ||||||||
12 | RCT | Serious limitationa | No serious inconsistencyb | No serious indirectnessc | No serious imprecision | Undetected | None | Moderate |
Function after treatment | ||||||||
12 | RCT | Serious limitationa | Seriousd | No serious indirectnesse | No serious imprecision | Undetected | None | Low |
Three studies were unclear random sequence generation. Four were unclear allocation concealment. Two were inadequate Selection of participants to groups. Three were no intention-to-treat principle. Three were inadequate blinding. Only two studies did not have serious limitations.
Nine studies were consistent with acupuncture to relief pain after treatment and had significant differences. One study achieved pain release without significant differences. The results of two studies without serious limitations were no significant differences about pain release.
Five studies had similar populations (age, diagnosis and severity) but patients of twelve studies were all diagnosed osteoarthritis. Eight studies used VAS for estimate the pain of the knee and four used other method to evaluate the severity of the pain.
Seven studies were consistent with acupuncture to improve function and had significant differences. The others did not achieve improved function. One study without serious limitations had improved function with significant differences.
Five studies had similar populations (age, diagnosis and severity) and patients of twelve studies were all diagnosed osteoarthritis. Nine studies used WOMAC as their outcome measurement of the function of the knee.