The Efficacy and Safety of Acupuncture for Treating Osteoporotic Vertebral Compression Fracture- (OVCF-) Induced Pain: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Table 2

Summary of findings.

Acupuncture for OVCF
Patient or population: patients with OVCF
Settings: inpatient
Intervention: acupuncture
Outcomes	Illustrative comparative risks^∗ (95% CI)		Relative effect (95% CI)	No. of Participants (studies)	Quality of the evidence (GRADE)	Comments
	Assumed risk	Corresponding risk
	Control	Acupuncture
One-week VAS; VAS; Follow-up: mean 1 weeks		The mean 1-week VAS in the intervention groups was 1.26 lower (1.82 to 0.7 lower)		601 (7 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2,3
One-month VAS; VAS; Follow-up: mean 1 months		The mean 1-month VAS in the intervention groups was; 1.69 lower (1.86 to 1.53 lower)		660 (7 studies)	⊕⊕⊝⊝ low^1,3,4
Six-month VAS; VAS; Follow-up: mean 6 months		The mean 6-month VAS in the intervention groups was; 1.13 lower (1.55 to 0.7 lower)		171 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2,3,5
Safety	Study population		RR 0.3 (0.12 to 0.75)	205 (3 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,3,5
	179 per 1000	54 per 1000 (21 to 134)
	Moderate
	133 per 1000	40 per 1000 (16 to 100)
ODI; Oswestry dysfunction index (ODI); Follow-up: mean 1 months		The mean ODI in the intervention groups was 3.19 lower (5.2 to 1.19 lower)		304 (4 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2,3
Bone density; X-ray determination of bone density; Follow-up: mean 1 months		The mean bone density in the intervention groups was; 0.15 higher (0.05 to 0.26 higher)		440 (4 studies)	⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low^1,2,3

^∗The basis for the assumed risk (e.g., the median control group risk across studies) is provided. 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). OVCF: osteoporotic vertebral compression fracture; CI: confidence interval; RR: risk ratio; VAS: visual analogue scale; ODI: Oswestry disability index; 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. ¹No description of allocation concealment and blinding. ²The heterogeneity is large and cannot be explained. ³Publication bias is not tested, but there is a lot of dedication. ⁴The heterogeneity was explained after we performed sensitivity analysis. ⁵Sample size is too small (n ＜ 300).