Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 637

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Linde, Klaus, Streng, Andrea, Jürgens, Susanne, Hoppe, Andrea, Brinkhaus, Benno, Witt, Claudia, Wagenpfeil, Stephan, Pfaffenrath, Volker, Hammes, Michael G., Weidenhammer, Wolfgang, Willich, Stefan N., Melchart, Dieter·2005·JAMA

Abstract

CONTEXT: Acupuncture is widely used to prevent migraine attacks, but the available evidence of its benefit is scarce. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effectiveness of acupuncture compared with sham acupuncture and with no acupuncture in patients with migraine. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Three-group, randomized, controlled trial (April 2002-January 2003) involving 302 patients (88% women), mean (SD) age of 43 (11) years, with migraine headaches, based on International Headache Society criteria. Patients were treated at 18 outpatient centers in Germany. INTERVENTIONS: Acupuncture, sham acupuncture, or waiting list control. Acupuncture and sham acupuncture were administered by specialized physicians and consisted of 12 sessions per patient over 8 weeks. Patients completed headache diaries from 4 weeks before to 12 weeks after randomization and from week 21 to 24 after randomization. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Difference in headache days of moderate or severe intensity between the 4 weeks before and weeks 9 to 12 after randomization. RESULTS: Between baseline and weeks 9 to 12, the mean (SD) number of days with headache of moderate or severe intensity decreased by 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline of 5.2 (2.5) days in the acupuncture group compared with a decrease to 2.2 (2.7) days from a baseline of 5.0 (2.4) days in the sham acupuncture group, and by 0.8 (2.0) days from a baseline if 5.4 (3.0) days in the waiting list group. No difference was detected between the acupuncture and the sham acupuncture groups (0.0 days, 95% confidence interval, -0.7 to 0.7 days; P = .96) while there was a difference between the acupuncture group compared with the waiting list group (1.4 days; 95% confidence interval; 0.8-2.1 days; P<.001). The proportion of responders (reduction in headache days by at least 50%) was 51% in the acupuncture group, 53% in the sham acupuncture group, and 15% in the waiting list group. CONCLUSION: Acupuncture was no more effective than sham acupuncture in reducing migraine headaches although both interventions were more effective than a waiting list control.

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.293.17.2118

Cites

4 of 4 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 4 references

Cited by

See all 637

Metadata

Authors
Linde, K., Streng, A., Jürgens, S., Hoppe, A., Brinkhaus, B., Witt, C., Wagenpfeil, S., Pfaffenrath, V., Hammes, M. G., Weidenhammer, W., Willich, S. N., & Melchart, D.
Venue
JAMA
Published
2005-05-04
Volume
293
Issue
17
Pages
2118
ISSN
  • 0002-9955 (ISSN-L)
  • 0098-7484
OpenAlex
W2149227217
Cited by
637
References
4
FWCI
104.87
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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1001/jama.293.17.2118
The paper
Linde, K., Streng, A., Jürgens, S., Hoppe, A., Brinkhaus, B., Witt, C., Wagenpfeil, S., Pfaffenrath, V., Hammes, M. G., Weidenhammer, W., Willich, S. N., & Melchart, D. (2005). Acupuncture for Patients With Migraine: A Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.293.17.2118

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.