Finding Registered Acupressure Trials and Checking Their Status

Start with the registry and keep the search reproducible

1. Open ClinicalTrials.gov. For a broad worked search, type acupressure in Other terms and leave All studies selected. This can find mentions in titles or descriptions, including studies that are no longer recruiting.
2. Keep the initial location and condition filters blank if you are checking the research landscape. A search restricted to recruiting studies would miss completed work.
3. Open a relevant title and copy the ClinicalTrials.gov ID, such as an NCT number. Record the date of your search and the filters used.
4. Read Intervention/Treatment and Arms and Interventions. A keyword match does not establish what each group actually received.
5. To focus a later search, put a condition in Condition/disease and a specific intervention in Intervention/treatment. Use the fields that fit the information, rather than putting many unrelated terms into one box.

The examples below came from the broad search. They are a demonstration of checking records, rather than a complete inventory or a recommendation to join one of the studies. Search counts and record statuses change.

When you want publicly available summary results, use More Filters → Study Results → With results, then search or apply the filters. To examine unposted submissions, look separately at Results Submitted. The platform's official search guide explains those controls. Do not assume a results filter finds every journal paper related to the topic.

Check the intervention and the population before the status

Acupressure, needle acupuncture and stimulation delivered by other methods should not be treated as interchangeable. Read the actual intervention name and description. Also distinguish pressure delivered by a practitioner, self-administered pressure and an auricular intervention such as ear beads. If the trial combines pressure with another treatment, record the combination rather than attributing everything to pressure alone.

Read the comparison group too. A trial might compare an acupressure protocol with sham pressure, another active treatment or usual care. “There was a control group” is incomplete unless you know what the control group received.

Then identify the population and outcome. A trial in people receiving cancer treatment is not automatically evidence about everyday stress in otherwise healthy adults. A study with feasibility or adherence as a primary outcome does not, by that fact alone, establish symptom-treatment efficacy.

You are reading a research protocol, not a personal treatment instruction. Do not copy its points, duration or eligibility wording into a self-treatment plan. The registry's purpose is to make study information available; ClinicalTrials.gov explicitly states that the government does not review or approve the safety and science of all listed studies.

Read recruitment status using that registry’s definitions

Always record Last Verified as well as Last Update Posted. Verification concerns the reported information's currency; a posted update is a change made available on the site. An old contact or a historical recruiting label should not override the current “Unknown” display.

If you are considering participation, the study team must address current availability, eligibility and the consent process. This reading exercise does not assess whether joining is suitable for you, and none of the examples is an invitation from this site.

Three real records: status and results are separate

NCT06442891 has posted results and an actual enrollment of 42. Its registered primary measures concern recruitment and adherence. Fatigue is also measured, but the presence of results does not let you replace the pilot's scope with a claim that acupressure treats every kind of fatigue.

NCT06723041 is listed as recruiting, with no posted results. Its enrollment of 78 and completion date of 31 December 2028 are labeled estimated. They describe planned quantities and timing, rather than 78 people already completing a successful study.

NCT01056458 shows “Unknown status,” last verified in January 2010, with “Recruiting” as the last known status. Its Results Submitted tab says the results are not posted. Two submission cycles are visible: 4 April 2011, returned after quality-control review on 28 April; and 13 May 2011, returned on 13 June.

That third record is why “no posted results” should not be rewritten as “the researchers never submitted anything.” The tab explains that unposted information may be awaiting review or correction. It also states that NLM's limited quality-control review checks apparent errors, deficiencies or inconsistencies and does not verify scientific validity or relevance.

Keep study dates separate from record-posting dates

Primary completion concerns final data collection for all primary outcome measures; study completion can involve further outcomes or follow-up. They need not share a date. An estimated date is what researchers expect, rather than confirmation that the event happened.

Use Record History when a claim depends on what was registered earlier. Compare dated versions for changes to enrollment, outcomes, intervention descriptions or dates. A current page is not automatically a copy of the initial plan.

For example, the completed pilot's description mentions increasing enrollment to 45, while the current Enrollment (Actual) field is 42. Preserve the field labels rather than combining planned and actual numbers. Differences deserve context; they do not by themselves prove misconduct.

Find results without turning availability into a conclusion

Open the Results tab when summaries are posted. Look for participant flow, baseline characteristics, outcomes and adverse events. Match the results to the registered population, comparison, measurement and time frame. A heading or a single favorable number is not the whole study.

Check linked publications using the identifier and study details. The example completed record warns that automatically supplied PubMed publications may or may not be about that study. A similar title is not enough to establish that a paper reports the same trial.

If results are unposted, write that limitation exactly. You may find a publication elsewhere, a submission history or no accessible report; each needs checking. “Not available here” is more accurate than guessing a positive or negative effect. This article checks registry information and does not evaluate the clinical effectiveness of these three trials.

Use WHO’s search platform for another route into the record

The WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform points to its ICTRP search portal and other registries. WHO explains that ICTRP itself is not a trial registry; researchers do not register a trial directly with WHO.

When checking records across systems, write the registry name and identifier, then examine any secondary identifiers. WHO's Trial Registration Data Set includes those fields along with interventions, recruitment status, planned and enrolled sample sizes, outcomes and summary results. One study can have more than one identifier. Compare the identifiers, sponsor, design and population before counting related records as independent trials.

Use the underlying registry's current record and definitions to resolve details. Similar status words across platforms do not guarantee identical meanings, and finding a record through WHO does not turn registration into WHO endorsement of a treatment.

A reusable registry-check log

Finish with a restrained sentence: “I found this registered study in this population; its record currently shows this status and this result availability.” Add a clinical conclusion only after the appropriate evidence has actually been assessed.

Four reading checks

Use the real examples above before opening the explanations.