Acupuncture vs sham: Adverse events Self‐reported
- Population
- patients with non‐specific chronic low back pain
- Intervention
- Acupuncture
- Comparison
- sham
- Outcome
- Adverse events Self‐reported
Acupuncture showed no clear difference in adverse events Self‐reported compared with sham intervention (low certainty).
What each review found
Current versions only| Finding | Effect | Studies | GRADE certainty |
|---|---|---|---|
Acupuncture vs sham intervention Adverse events Self‐reported · chronic nonspecific low back pain Acupuncture showed no clear difference in adverse events Self‐reported compared with sham intervention (low certainty). Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain (2020) · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | RR 0.68 [0.46, 1.01] | 4 studies · 465 participants | Low |
Findings are shown side by side, never pooled across reviews.
The reviews
| Review | Searched up to | Included studies | AMSTAR 2 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Acupuncture for chronic nonspecific low back pain 2020 · Cochrane Headline outcomes only | Not reported | Not extracted | Not assessed |
Related questions
The same intervention and outcome, asked in another population or against another comparator.
- Acupuncture vs usual care · patients with non‐specific chronic low back pain · 1 review
- Acupuncture vs no treatment · patients with non‐specific chronic low back pain · 1 review
How reviews are matched to this question
Reviews word the same question differently. Four decision models (TypeSafe's Jev, Liquid AI's d1-ultra, SubQ Snap and Baseten's Elephant) judged each wording of the population, intervention, comparator and outcome against the others; two wordings count as the same when at least three of them agree and none clearly disagrees, and findings count as this question only when all four elements match. Timing, setting and subgroup never split a question: they are shown on each finding.