↓ Skip to main content

Acupuncture for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Overview of attention for article published in Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (62nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 tweeters
facebook
3 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
2 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 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
Acupuncture for Acne Vulgaris: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in
Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM), January 2018
DOI 10.1155/2018/4806734
Pubmed ID
Authors

Suzi S. Y. Mansu, Haiying Liang, Shefton Parker, Meaghan E. Coyle, Kaiyi Wang, Anthony L. Zhang, Xinfeng Guo, Chuanjian Lu, Charlie C. L. Xue

Abstract

To conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the current best available evidence of the efficacy and safety of acupuncture and related therapies for acne vulgaris. Eleven English and Chinese databases were searched to identify randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of acne vulgaris compared to pharmacotherapies, no treatment, and sham or placebo acupuncture. Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was conducted using RevMan software. Twelve RCTs were included in the qualitative review and 10 RCTs were included in meta-analysis. Methodological quality of trials was generally low. The chance of achieving ≥30% change in lesion count in the acupuncture group was no different to the pharmacotherapy group (RR: 1.07 [95% CI 0.98, 1.17]; I2 = 8%) and ≥50% change in lesion count in the acupuncture group was not statistically different to the pharmacotherapy group (RR: 1.07 [95% CI 0.98, 1.17]; I2 = 50%). While caution should be exercised due to quality of the included studies, acupuncture and auricular acupressure were not statistically different to guideline recommended treatments but were with fewer side effects and may be a treatment option. Future trials should address the methodological weaknesses and meet standard reporting requirements stipulated in STRICTA.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 29%
Researcher 4 12%
Other 3 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 9%
Student > Postgraduate 2 6%
Other 6 18%
Unknown 6 18%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 12 35%
Nursing and Health Professions 6 18%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 6%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 4 12%
Unknown 6 18%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. 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 27 January 2020.
All research outputs
#4,663,337
of 15,519,772 outputs
Outputs from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#1,346
of 6,289 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,319
of 279,827 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Evidence-based Complementary & Alternative Medicine (eCAM)
#1
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,519,772 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,289 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% 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 279,827 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them