After a reader inquiry, there are multiple corrections being made to the Medicine
article, “Acupuncture and weight loss in Asians, a PRISMA-compliant systematic review
and meta-analysis,”[1] published in Volume 98, Issue 33 of Medicine. The authors of
the paper apologize for the mistakes.
1)
There was an error in the Abstract Results section. The Results should read:
Twelve RCTs involving 1151 subjects were included. Compared with the control groups,
the acupuncture groups exhibited significantly greater reductions of body mass index
(BMI) (WMD -1.20 kg/m2; 95% CI -1.91, -0.48)and waist circumference (WMD -1.85 cm;
95% CI -3.20, -0.49) In the subgroup analyses, significant differences in the reduction
of BMI was observed between the acupuncture and sham acupuncture groups, the acupuncture
plus diet and exercise, and the diet and exercise groups, and the acupuncture and
no intervention groups, but not between the acupuncture plus exercise and exercise
groups.
2)
There was an error and missing reference in section 2.6 Data synthesis and analysis.
The line should read “where r is the correlation coefficient and the value is 0.4.”[12]
[43].
References [43] Abrams KR, Gillies CL, Lambert PC. Meta-analysis of heterogeneously
reported trials assessing change from baseline. Stat Med 2005; 24:3823-44.
3)
There was an error in Figure 1. The “not RCT: n = 1” was missing from the figure.
4)
There was an error in section 3.3 Effect of acupuncture on BMI.
The overall efficacy of acupuncture relative to control treatment was evident from
a significant difference in the reduction of BMI (WMD -1.20 kg/m2; 95% CI -1.91, -0.48)
(Fig. 4). In the subgroup analyses, significant differences in the reduction of BMI
were noted between acupuncture and sham acupuncture (WMD -0.79 kg/m2; 95% CI -0.99,
-0.59), acupuncture plus diet and exercise and diet and exercise (WMD:-2.27 kg/m2;
95%CI: -4.26, -0.29) and acupuncture and no intervention(WMD:-1.70 kg/m2;95%CI: -2.59,
-0.81). No significant differences were observed in the comparisons of acupuncture
with placebo acupuncture (WMD:-0.98 kg/m2;95%CI: -2.26, 0.30), acupuncture plus laser
acupuncture with laser acupuncture (WMD:-0.04 kg/m2;95%CI: -1.21, 1.13) and acupuncture
plus exercise with exercise (WMD:-0.50 kg/m2;95%CI: -2.20, 1.20).
Figure 4 has been updated.
5)
There was an error in section 3.4 Effect of acupuncture on waist circumference.
The overall efficacy of acupuncture relative to control treatment was evident from
the significant difference in the reduction of waist circumference (WMD -1.85 cm;
95% CI -3.20, -0.49) (Fig. 5). In the subgroup analyses, there were significant differences
in the reduction of waist circumference between acupuncture plus diet and exercise,
and diet and exercise (WMD -4.35 cm; 95% CI -6.16, -2.54), and acupuncture and no
intervention (WMD -0.29 cm; 95% CI -0.54, -0.05). There was no significant difference
between acupuncture and sham acupuncture (WMD -1.28 cm; 95% CI -3.96, 1.41), acupuncture
plus exercise and exercise (WMD -1.07 cm; 95% CI -4.29, 2.16).
Figure 5 has been updated.
6)
There was an error in section 4, the Discussion.
“Our results demonstrated that relative to sham treatment, acupuncture was effective
for the reduction of BMI and waist circumference.” should be revised to “Our results
demonstrated that relative to sham treatment, acupuncture was effective for the reduction
of BMI”
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study selection process.
Figure 4
Body mass index (BMI): acupuncture vs control.
Figure 5
Waist circumference: acupuncture vs control.