↓ Skip to main content

Effects of acupoint-stimulation for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea compared with NSAIDs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 RCTs

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (72nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
9 X users
facebook
2 Facebook pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
33 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
129 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
Effects of acupoint-stimulation for the treatment of primary dysmenorrhoea compared with NSAIDs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of 19 RCTs
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12906-017-1924-8
Pubmed ID
Authors

Yang Xu, Wenli Zhao, Te Li, Huaien Bu, Zhimei Zhao, Ye Zhao, Shilin Song

Abstract

Primary dysmenorrhoea (PD), defined as painful menses in women with normal pelvic anatomy, is one of the most common gynaecological syndromes. Acupoint-stimulation could potentially be an effective intervention for PD. Our aim was to determine the effectiveness of acupoint-stimulation compared with Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs (NASIDs) in the treatment of PD. Six databases were searched to December 2014. Sixteen studies involving 1679 PD patients were included. We included randomized controlled trials that compared acupoint-stimulation with NASIDs for the treatment of PD. The main outcomes assessed were clinical effectiveness rate, symptom score, visual analogue score, variation in peripheral blood prostaglandin F2α (PGF2α) and side effects. All analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis statistical software. (1) The total efficacy was better than control group: odds ratio = 5.57; 95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 3.96, 7.83; P < 0.00001; (2) The effect of intervention was positive in relieving the severity of PD symptoms: mean difference (MD) = 2.99; 95%CI = 2.49, 3.49; P < 0.00001; (3) No statistical difference existed between two groups in terms of a reduction in the VAS: MD = 1.24; 95%CI = -3.37, 5.85; P = 0.60; (4) The effect of intervention on the variation in peripheral blood PGF2α between two groups was positive: MD = 7.55; 95%CI = 4.29,10.82; P < 0.00001; (5) The side effects of control groups was more than the acupoint-stimulation group: OR = 0.03; 95%CI =0.00,0.22; P = 0.0005. According to this article, acupoint-stimulation can relieve pain effectively in the treatment of PD and offers advantages in increasing the overall effectiveness.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 9 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 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 129 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 26 20%
Student > Master 14 11%
Researcher 7 5%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 5%
Lecturer 4 3%
Other 14 11%
Unknown 57 44%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 30 23%
Medicine and Dentistry 21 16%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 4 3%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 2%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 2%
Other 10 8%
Unknown 58 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 6. 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 18 June 2018.
All research outputs
#5,680,266
of 23,342,092 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#930
of 3,682 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#87,773
of 317,174 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#19
of 106 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,342,092 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 75th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,682 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.9. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 74% 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 317,174 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 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 106 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.