Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 305

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acupuncture and Amitriptyline for Pain Due to HIV-Related Peripheral Neuropathy<SUBTITLE>A Randomized Controlled Trial</SUBTITLE>

Shlay, Judith C.·1998·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Peripheral neuropathy is common in persons infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) but few data on symptomatic treatment are available. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy of a standardized acupuncture regimen (SAR) and amitriptyline hydrochloride for the relief of pain due to HIV-related peripheral neuropathy in HIV-infected patients. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, multicenter clinical trial. Each site enrolled patients into 1 of the following 3 options: (1) a modified double-blind 2 x 2 factorial design of SAR, amitriptyline, or the combination compared with placebo, (2) a modified double-blind design of an SAR vs control points, or (3) a double-blind design of amitriptyline vs placebo. SETTING: Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS (HIV primary care providers) in 10 US cities. PATIENTS: Patients with HIV-associated, symptomatic, lower-extremity peripheral neuropathy. Of 250 patients enrolled, 239 were in the acupuncture comparison (125 in the factorial option and 114 in the SAR option vs control points option), and 136 patients were in the amitriptyline comparison (125 in the factorial option and 11 in amitriptyline option vs placebo option). INTERVENTIONS: Standardized acupuncture regimen vs control points, amitriptyline (75 mg/d) vs placebo, or both for 14 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: Changes in mean pain scores at 6 and 14 weeks, using a pain scale ranging from 0.0 (no pain) to 1.75 (extremely intense), recorded daily. RESULTS: Patients in all 4 groups showed reduction in mean pain scores at 6 and 14 weeks compared with baseline values. For both the acupuncture and amitriptyline comparisons, changes in pain score were not significantly different between the 2 groups. At 6 weeks, the estimated difference in pain reduction for patients in the SAR group compared with those in the control points group (a negative value indicates a greater reduction for the "active" treatment) was 0.01 (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.11 to 0.12; P=.88) and for patients in the amitriptyline group vs those in the placebo group was -0.07 (95% CI, -0.22 to 0.08; P=.38). At 14 weeks, the difference for those in the SAR group compared with those in the control points group was -0.08 (95% CI, -0.21 to 0.06; P=.26) and for amitriptyline compared with placebo was 0.00 (95% CI, -0.18 to 0.19; P=.99). CONCLUSIONS: In this study, neither acupuncture nor amitriptyline was more effective than placebo in relieving pain caused by HIV-related peripheral neuropathy.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1001/jama.280.18.1590

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 1 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Shlay, J. C.
Venue
JAMA
Published
1998-11-11
Volume
280
Issue
18
Pages
1590
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2147680588
Cited by
305
References
1
FWCI
22.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.