Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35075367›Full record

ReviewEvidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM2022

Efficacy and Safety of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) for Postoperative Pain in Laparoscopy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Dan Meng, Yifei Mao, Quan-Mei Song, Chun-Chun Yan, Qin-Yu Zhao, Mengqi Yang, Guangxin Xiang, Yongmei Song

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 18 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
18citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
11.7field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

18 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Dan MengInstitute of Literature and Culture of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.
Yifei MaoInstitute of Literature and Culture of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.
Quan-Mei SongInstitute of Acupuncture, Moxibustion, and Massage, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.
Chun-Chun YanInstitute of Acupuncture, Moxibustion, and Massage, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.
Qin-Yu ZhaoInstitute of Literature and Culture of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.
Mengqi YangInstitute of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2161-1973
Guangxin XiangInstitute of Literature and Culture of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.
Yongmei SongInstitute of Literature and Culture of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Jinan, Shandong 250355, China.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2778-2252
Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThis meta-analysis aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of transcutaneous acupoint electrical stimulation (TEAS) for postoperative pain in laparoscopy. The review has been registered on the "INPLASY" website and the registration number is INPLASY202150101.

methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials are selected from seven electronic databases (PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Embase, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Chongqing VIP Information, WanFang Data, and Chinese Biomedical Database) from their inception up to November 30, 2020. Twenty-eight studies were included in this meta-analysis, and the statistical analyses and the exploration of heterogeneity sources were conducted by Stata 15.0 software. Besides, the bias assessment of the included studies was evaluated using the Cochrane risk of bias tool.

resultsIn total, 28 RCTs covering 2787 participants were included. The meta-analysis suggested that TEAS can effectively relieve pain in the short term after laparoscopy, reduce the postoperative consumption of rescue analgesics, improve the quality of life of patients, and shorten the length of hospitalization. And no serious adverse events are related to TEAS. Therefore, TEAS is relatively safe and efficacy for clinical application. The most used acupoints were Hegu (LI14), Neiguan (PC6), and Zusanli (ST36).

conclusionsTEAS can be recommended as a complementary and alternative therapy for the treatment of postoperative pain after laparoscopy. However, the included RCTs had some methodological limitations. Therefore, larger-size, more rigorous, and higher-quality RCTs are needed in the future to further explore the efficacy and safety of TEAS for postoperative pain after laparoscopy.

Identifiers

PMID35075367
PMCPMC8783713
OpenAlexW4205920264

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.