↓ Skip to main content

Optimizing acupuncture treatment for dry eye syndrome: a systematic review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
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 (81st percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
39 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
69 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
Optimizing acupuncture treatment for dry eye syndrome: a systematic review
Published in
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies, May 2018
DOI 10.1186/s12906-018-2202-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bong Hyun Kim, Min Hee Kim, Se Hyun Kang, Hae Jeong Nam

Abstract

In a former meta-analysis review, acupuncture was considered a potentially effective treatment for dry eye syndrome (DES), but there were heterogeneities among the outcomes. We updated the meta-analysis and conducted subgroup analysis to reduce the heterogeneity and suggest the most effective acupuncture method based on clinical trials. We searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in 10 databases (MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTAL, AMED, SCOPUS, CNKI, Wangfang database, Oriental Medicine Advanced Searching Integrated System (OASIS), Koreamed, J-stage) and searched by hand to compare the effects of acupuncture and artificial tears (AT). We also conducted subgroup analysis by (1) method of intervention (acupuncture only or acupuncture plus AT), (2) intervention frequency (less than 3 times a week or more than 3 times a week), (3) period of treatment (less than 4 weeks or more than 4 weeks), and (4) acupoints (BL1, BL2, ST1, ST2, TE23, Ex-HN5). The Bucher method was used for subgroup comparisons. Nineteen studies with 1126 patients were included. Significant improvements on the Schirmer test (weighted mean difference[WMD], 2.14; 95% confidence interval[CI], 0.93 to 3.34; p = 0.0005) and break up time (BUT) (WMD, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.18; p < 0.00001) were reported. In the subgroup analysis, acupuncture plus AT treatment had a weaker effect in BUT but a stronger effect on the Schirmer test and a better overall effect than acupuncture alone. For treatment duration, treatment longer than 1 month was more effective than shorter treatment. With regard to treatment frequency, treatment less than three times a week was more effective than more frequent treatment. In the acupoint analysis, acupuncture treatment including the BL2 and ST1 acupoints was less effective than treatment that did not include them. None of those factors reduced the heterogeneity. Acupuncture was more effective than AT in treating DES but showed high heterogeneity. Intervention differences did not influence the heterogeneity.

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 69 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 69 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Doctoral Student 10 14%
Other 6 9%
Student > Bachelor 6 9%
Researcher 4 6%
Student > Postgraduate 4 6%
Other 13 19%
Unknown 26 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 28 41%
Veterinary Science and Veterinary Medicine 3 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Materials Science 2 3%
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 1%
Other 4 6%
Unknown 28 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 16 January 2019.
All research outputs
#2,687,952
of 22,699,621 outputs
Outputs from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#480
of 3,619 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#58,374
of 325,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
#11
of 88 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,699,621 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 3,619 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.5. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% 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 325,428 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 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 88 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.