↓ Skip to main content

Acupuncture for Menopausal Hot Flashes: A Randomized Trial.

Overview of attention for article published in Annals of Internal Medicine, January 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
39 news outlets
blogs
9 blogs
twitter
85 X users
peer_reviews
1 peer review site
facebook
21 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
2 Redditors
podcasts
1 podcast

Readers on

mendeley
150 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Acupuncture for Menopausal Hot Flashes: A Randomized Trial.
Published in
Annals of Internal Medicine, January 2016
DOI 10.7326/m15-1380
Pubmed ID
Authors
Abstract

Hot flashes (HFs) affect up to 75% of menopausal women and pose a considerable health and financial burden. Evidence of acupuncture efficacy as an HF treatment is conflicting. To assess the efficacy of Chinese medicine acupuncture against sham acupuncture for menopausal HFs. Stratified, blind (participants, outcome assessors, and investigators, but not treating acupuncturists), parallel, randomized, sham-controlled trial with equal allocation. (Australia New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12611000393954). Community in Australia. Women older than 40 years in the late menopausal transition or postmenopause with at least 7 moderate HFs daily, meeting criteria for Chinese medicine diagnosis of kidney yin deficiency. 10 treatments over 8 weeks of either standardized Chinese medicine needle acupuncture designed to treat kidney yin deficiency or noninsertive sham acupuncture. The primary outcome was HF score at the end of treatment. Secondary outcomes included quality of life, anxiety, depression, and adverse events. Participants were assessed at 4 weeks, the end of treatment, and then 3 and 6 months after the end of treatment. Intention-to-treat analysis was conducted with linear mixed-effects models. 327 women were randomly assigned to acupuncture (n = 163) or sham acupuncture (n = 164). At the end of treatment, 16% of participants in the acupuncture group and 13% in the sham group were lost to follow-up. Mean HF scores at the end of treatment were 15.36 in the acupuncture group and 15.04 in the sham group (mean difference, 0.33 [95% CI, -1.87 to 2.52]; P = 0.77). No serious adverse events were reported. Participants were predominantly Caucasian and did not have breast cancer or surgical menopause. Chinese medicine acupuncture was not superior to noninsertive sham acupuncture for women with moderately severe menopausal HFs. National Health and Medical Research Council.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 150 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 149 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 17%
Student > Master 18 12%
Other 15 10%
Researcher 9 6%
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 5%
Other 27 18%
Unknown 47 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 63 42%
Nursing and Health Professions 19 13%
Psychology 5 3%
Social Sciences 5 3%
Unspecified 4 3%
Other 9 6%
Unknown 45 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 389. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 14 August 2019.
All research outputs
#97,529
of 33,979,905 outputs
Outputs from Annals of Internal Medicine
#491
of 16,762 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,371
of 449,042 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Annals of Internal Medicine
#5
of 134 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 33,979,905 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,762 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 59.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 449,042 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 134 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.