↓ Skip to main content

A randomized, controlled, crossover study in patients with mild and moderate asthma undergoing treatment with traditional Chinese acupuncture

Overview of attention for article published in Clinics, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
98 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.
Title
A randomized, controlled, crossover study in patients with mild and moderate asthma undergoing treatment with traditional Chinese acupuncture
Published in
Clinics, October 2015
DOI 10.6061/clinics/2015(10)01
Pubmed ID
Authors

Hong Jin Pai, Raymundo Soares Azevedo, Alfésio Luís Ferreira Braga, Lourdes Conceição Martins, Beatriz M Saraiva-Romanholo, Milton de Arruda Martins, Chin An Lin

Abstract

This study sought to verify the effects of acupuncture as an adjuvant treatment for the control of asthma. This was a randomized, controlled, crossover trial conducted at the Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina da Universidade de São Paulo. A total of 74 patients with mild/moderate, persistent asthma were randomized into two therapeutic groups: Group A - 31 patients underwent 10 real weekly acupuncture sessions, followed by a 3-week washout period and 10 sham weekly acupuncture sessions; and Group B - 43 patients underwent 10 sham weekly acupuncture sessions, followed by a 3-week washout period and 10 real weekly acupuncture sessions. Patients used short- and long-acting β-2 agonists and inhaled corticosteroids when necessary. Prior to treatment and after each period of 10 treatment sessions, the patients were evaluated for spirometry, induced sputum cell count, exhaled nitric oxide (NO) and with the Short Form 36 (SF-36) and Questionnaire on Quality of Life-Asthma (QQLA) questionnaires. Daily peak flow and symptom diaries were registered. The level of significance adopted was 5% (α=0.05). In Group B, after real acupuncture, there was a decrease in eosinophils (p=0.035) and neutrophils (p=0.047), an increase in macrophages (p=0.001) and an improvement in peak flow (p=0.01). After sham acupuncture treatment, patients experienced less coughing (p=0.037), wheezing (p=0.013) and dyspnea (p=0.014); similarly, after real acupuncture, patients reported less coughing (p=0.040), wheezing (p=0.012), dyspnea (p<0.001) and nocturnal awakening episodes (p=0.009). In Group A, there was less use of rescue medication (p=0.043). After the sham procedure, patients in Group A experienced less coughing (p=0.007), wheezing (p=0.037), dyspnea (p<0.001) and use of rescue medication (p<0.001) and after real acupuncture, these patients showed improvements in functional capacity (p=0.004), physical aspects (p=0.002), general health status (p<0.001) and vitality (p=0.019). Sham acupuncture also led to significant differences in symptoms, but these were not different from those seen with real acupuncture. Spirometry and exhaled NO levels did not show a difference between sham and real acupuncture treatment. In addition, no significant difference was demonstrated between treatments regarding the quality of life evaluation. Real and sham acupuncture have different effects and outcomes on asthma control. The crossover approach was not effective in this study because both interventions led to improvement of asthma symptoms, quality of life and inflammatory cell counts. Thus, sham acupuncture cannot serve as a placebo in trials with acupuncture as the main intervention for asthma.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 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 98 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 1 1%
Unknown 97 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 17 17%
Student > Bachelor 17 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 7%
Researcher 6 6%
Librarian 4 4%
Other 17 17%
Unknown 30 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 39%
Nursing and Health Professions 8 8%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 4%
Psychology 3 3%
Unspecified 3 3%
Other 9 9%
Unknown 33 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 03 July 2023.
All research outputs
#2,794,911
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from Clinics
#101
of 1,215 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#37,209
of 286,876 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinics
#2
of 12 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 88th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,215 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% 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 286,876 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 12 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.