↓ Skip to main content

Michigan Publishing

Article Metrics

Effect of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture or Waitlist Control on Joint Pain Related to Aromatase Inhibitors Among Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Overview of attention for article published in JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 2018
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 (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (94th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
32 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
173 tweeters
facebook
23 Facebook pages
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Readers on

mendeley
14 Mendeley
Title
Effect of Acupuncture vs Sham Acupuncture or Waitlist Control on Joint Pain Related to Aromatase Inhibitors Among Women With Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Randomized Clinical Trial
Published in
JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association, July 2018
DOI 10.1001/jama.2018.8907
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dawn L. Hershman, Joseph M. Unger, Heather Greenlee, Jillian L. Capodice, Danika L. Lew, Amy K. Darke, Alice T. Kengla, Marianne K. Melnik, Carla W. Jorgensen, William H. Kreisle, Lori M. Minasian, Michael J. Fisch, N. Lynn Henry, Katherine D. Crew

Abstract

Musculoskeletal symptoms are the most common adverse effects of aromatase inhibitors and often result in therapy discontinuation. Small studies suggest that acupuncture may decrease aromatase inhibitor-related joint symptoms. To determine the effect of acupuncture in reducing aromatase inhibitor-related joint pain. Randomized clinical trial conducted at 11 academic centers and clinical sites in the United States from March 2012 to February 2017 (final date of follow-up, September 5, 2017). Eligible patients were postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer who were taking an aromatase inhibitor and scored at least 3 on the Brief Pain Inventory Worst Pain (BPI-WP) item (score range, 0-10; higher scores indicate greater pain). Patients were randomized 2:1:1 to the true acupuncture (n = 110), sham acupuncture (n = 59), or waitlist control (n = 57) group. True acupuncture and sham acupuncture protocols consisted of 12 acupuncture sessions over 6 weeks (2 sessions per week), followed by 1 session per week for 6 weeks. The waitlist control group did not receive any intervention. All participants were offered 10 acupuncture sessions to be used between weeks 24 and 52. The primary end point was the 6-week BPI-WP score. Mean 6-week BPI-WP scores were compared by study group using linear regression, adjusted for baseline pain and stratification factors (clinically meaningful difference specified as 2 points). Among 226 randomized patients (mean [SD] age, 60.7 [8.6] years; 88% white; mean [SD] baseline BPI-WP score, 6.6 [1.5]), 206 (91.1%) completed the trial. From baseline to 6 weeks, the mean observed BPI-WP score decreased by 2.05 points (reduced pain) in the true acupuncture group, by 1.07 points in the sham acupuncture group, and by 0.99 points in the waitlist control group. The adjusted difference for true acupuncture vs sham acupuncture was 0.92 points (95% CI, 0.20-1.65; P = .01) and for true acupuncture vs waitlist control was 0.96 points (95% CI, 0.24-1.67; P = .01). Patients in the true acupuncture group experienced more grade 1 bruising compared with patients in the sham acupuncture group (47% vs 25%; P = .01). Among postmenopausal women with early-stage breast cancer and aromatase inhibitor-related arthralgias, true acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture or with waitlist control resulted in a statistically significant reduction in joint pain at 6 weeks, although the observed improvement was of uncertain clinical importance. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01535066.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 173 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 14 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 14 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 3 21%
Unspecified 2 14%
Student > Master 1 7%
Lecturer 1 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 7%
Other 5 36%
Unknown 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 50%
Unspecified 4 29%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 7%
Unknown 1 7%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 397. 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 17 September 2018.
All research outputs
#20,738
of 11,800,340 outputs
Outputs from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#487
of 23,872 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#1,044
of 248,720 outputs
Outputs of similar age from JAMA: Journal of the American Medical Association
#19
of 343 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 11,800,340 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 23,872 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 41.3. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 97% 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 248,720 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 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 343 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.