↓ Skip to main content

Acupuncture for dysmenorrhoea

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 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 (96th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
4 news outlets
blogs
2 blogs
twitter
26 tweeters
facebook
5 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
31 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 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 dysmenorrhoea
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, April 2016
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd007854.pub3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline A Smith, Mike Armour, Xiaoshu Zhu, Xun Li, Zhi Yong Lu, Jing Song

Abstract

Primary dysmenorrhoea is the most common form of period pain and affects up to three-quarters of women at some stage of their reproductive life. Primary dysmenorrhoea is pain in the absence of any organic cause and is characterised by cramping pain in the lower abdomen, starting within the first eight to 72 hours of menstruation.This review examines the currently available evidence supporting the use of acupuncture (stimulation of points on the body using needles) and acupressure (stimulation of points on the body using pressure) to treat primary dysmenorrhoea. To determine the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture and acupressure in the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea when compared with a placebo, no treatment, or conventional medical treatment. We searched the following databases: the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Subfertility Group Trials Register (to September 2015), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (the Cochrane Library), MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL and Chinese databases including Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP database and registers of ongoing trials. We included all published and unpublished randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture with sham acupuncture or placebo control, usual care, pharmacological treatment or no treatment. We included the following modes of treatment: acupuncture, electro-acupuncture, and acupressure. Participants were women of reproductive age with primary dysmenorrhoea during the majority of the menstrual cycles or for three consecutive menstrual cycles, and moderate to severe symptoms. We calculated odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) for continuous outcomes, with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We pooled the data where appropriate. Our primary outcomes was pain. Secondary outcomes included menstrual symptoms, quality of life, and adverse effects. We included 42 RCTs (4640 women). Acupuncture or acupressure was compared with a sham/placebo group, medication, no treatment or other treatment. Many of the continuous data were not suitable for calculation of means, mainly due to evidence of skew.1. Acupuncture studies Acupuncture versus sham or placebo control (6 RCTs)Findings were inconsistent and inconclusive. However, the only study in the review that was at low risk of bias in all domains found no evidence of a difference between the groups at three, six or 12 months. The overall quality of the evidence was low. No studies reported adverse events. Acupuncture versus NSAIDs Seven studies reported visual analogue scale (VAS) pain scores, but were unsuitable for pooling due to extreme heterogeneity (I² = 94%). In all studies the scores were lower in the acupuncture group, with the mean difference varying across studies from 0.64 to 4 points on a VAS 0 - 10 scale (low-quality evidence). Four RCTs reported rates of pain relief, and found a benefit for the acupuncture group (OR 4.99, 95% CI 2.82 to 8.82, 352 women, I² = 0%, low-quality evidence). Adverse events were less common in the acupuncture group (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.44, 4 RCTs, 239 women, 4 trials, I² = 15%, low-quality evidence). Acupuncture versus no treatment Data were unsuitable for analysis, but pain scores were lower in the acupuncture group in all six studies reporting this outcome. The quality of the evidence was low. No studies reported adverse events.2. Acupressure studiesNo studies of acupressure reported adverse events. Acupressure versus sham or placebo controlData were unsuitable for pooling, but two studies reported a mean benefit of one to three points on a 0 - 10 VAS pain scale. Another four studies reported data unsuitable for analysis: all found that pain scores were lower in the acupuncture group. No studies reported adverse events. The quality of the evidence was low. Acupressure versus NSAIDsOne study reported this outcome, using a 0 - 3 pain scale. The score was higher (indicating more pain) in the acupressure group (MD 0.39 points, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.57, 136 women, very low-quality evidence). Acupressure versus no treatmentThere was no clear evidence of a difference between the groups on a VAS 0 - 10 pain scale (MD -0.96 points, 95% CI -2.54 to 0.62, 2 trials, 140 women, I² = 83%, very low-quality evidence). There is insufficient evidence to demonstrate whether or not acupuncture or acupressure are effective in treating primary dysmenorrhoea, and for most comparisons no data were available on adverse events. The quality of the evidence was low or very low for all comparisons. The main limitations were risk of bias, poor reporting, inconsistency and risk of publication bias.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 26 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 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Brazil 5 2%
United Kingdom 4 1%
Spain 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Ireland 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 277 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 85 29%
Student > Master 55 19%
Researcher 31 11%
Unspecified 26 9%
Other 24 8%
Other 70 24%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 149 51%
Nursing and Health Professions 49 17%
Unspecified 36 12%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 13 4%
Psychology 10 3%
Other 34 12%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 70. 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 12 September 2019.
All research outputs
#248,454
of 13,615,200 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#628
of 10,678 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#8,683
of 260,928 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#23
of 182 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,615,200 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,678 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% 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 260,928 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 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 182 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.