Skip to main content
. 2013 Jul 30;2013(7):CD007410. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD007410.pub2

Summary of findings for the main comparison. Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture for menopausal hot flushes.

Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture for menopausal hot flushes
Population: women with menopausal hot flushes
 Intervention: acupuncture versus sham acupuncture
Outcomes Illustrative comparative risks* (95% CI) No of Participants
 (studies) Quality of the evidence
 (GRADE) Comments
Acupuncture versus sham acupuncture
Hot flush frequency (number/day) The mean hot flush frequency in the intervention groups was
 1.13 flushes per day lower 
 (2.55 lower to 0.29 higher) 414
 (8 studies) ⊕⊕⊝⊝
 low1,2 There was no significant difference between the groups in the mean number of hot flushes per day
Hot flush severity The mean hot flush severity in the intervention groups was
 0.45 standard deviations lower 
 (0.84 to 0.05 lower) 297
 (6 studies) ⊕⊝⊝⊝
 very low3,4 Hot flushes were significantly less severe in the acupuncture group. The size of the effect was small.
SMD ‐0.45 (‐0.84 to ‐0.05)
*The basis for the assumed risk is the median control group risk across studies. The corresponding risk (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
 CI: confidence interval; SMD: standardized mean difference.
GRADE Working Group grades of evidence
 High quality: Further research is very unlikely to change our confidence in the estimate of effect.
 Moderate quality: Further research is likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and may change the estimate.
 Low quality: Further research is very likely to have an important impact on our confidence in the estimate of effect and is likely to change the estimate.
 Very low quality: We are very uncertain about the estimate.

1 Only 2/8 studies described appropriate methods of randomization and allocation concealment, one of which had very high attrition.
 2 Heterogeneity 70%.
 3 Heterogeneity 68%.
 4 Small total sample (n = 297).