The Efficacy of Acupuncture on Foot and Ankle for Pain Intensity, Functional Status, and General Quality of Life in Adults: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To assess the effect of acupuncture on foot and ankle pain intensity, functional status, quality of life, and incidence of adverse events in adults. Methods: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were obtained from a systematic search of 6 major English databases, and a manual search of relevant systematic reviews using Google Scholar. RCTs that compared acupuncture with various forms of sham acupuncture, nonactive and waitlist controls for pain intensity, functional status, and general quality of life were included. Study screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and quality assessment were all performed independently. A narrative synthesis was performed when quantitative pooling was inappropriate. Results: Four RCTs were included, encompassing a total of 211 participants. Due to clinical heterogeneity for all outcomes, quantitative analysis was not appropriate. Our Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation rated all outcomes to have either low or very low quality of evidence. With low-quality evidence, acupuncture was shown to be efficacious for participants with plantar fasciitis for pain relief and functional status improvement at short- and intermediate-term follow-ups. Acupuncture was also shown to be efficacious for participants with Achilles tendinopathy for pain relief at short- and intermediate-term follow-ups. No adverse events were reported. Conclusion: There is some evidence to suggest acupuncture to be a safe and efficacious treatment for relieving pain and improving functional status for the foot and ankle. The results of this systematic review should be interpreted with caution due to the limited evidence. Future research should take into consideration the findings of this systematic review.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".