Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36934401›Full record

ReviewPain and therapy2023

Efficacy and Safety of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) As An Analgesic Intervention for Labor Pain: A Network Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Wenli Yan, Zunqi Kan, Jiahui Yin, Yuxia Ma

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Pain and therapy, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
3.4field-weighted citation impact, top 8% 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

12 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 14 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Wenli Yan *College of Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong, China.
Zunqi Kan *College of Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong, China.
Jiahui YinCollege of Chinese Medicine, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong, China.
Yuxia MaDepartment of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shandong, China. sd15662401851@163.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1578-2220
Shandong University of Traditional Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province ZR2021LZY044
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionEpidural analgesia (EA) is the most widely used intervention for the reduction of labor pain; however, it is contra-indicated for patients with spinal deformity or allergy to anesthetics and may be refused by parturients. As a noninvasive and nonnarcotic analgesic intervention, transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) has gained increasing attention in recent years. Therefore, we performed a network meta-analysis to compare the efficacy and safety of TEAS and EA as measured by visual analog scale score, the failure rate of natural delivery, adverse events, and Apgar scores.

methodsRelevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from four electronic databases (PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane CENTRAL) and clinical trials.gov were searched from inception until September 4, 2022. A random effects model was used during analysis, and outcomes were evaluated as standard mean difference (SMD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CrI) using STATA (version SE15.0), R (version 3.6.1), and ADDIS (version 1.16.8) software.

resultsTen RCTs comprising 1214 parturients were identified by screening. Six RCTs compared TEAS and controls, three compared EA and controls, and one compared TEAS and EA. No heterogeneity was found within the four outcomes. There was no significant difference in any outcomes between interventions or control treatments in terms of SMD, OR, and CrI. Combined with the highest surface under the cumulative ranking curve score, TEAS demonstrated possible better effects in the aspects of analgesic efficacy and safety under certain circumstances.

conclusionsTEAS may be a potential alternative for parturients as a simple, noninvasive, and non-pharmacological intervention compared with EA in terms of analgesic efficacy and safety for mothers and neonates.

Indexed as

EfficacyEpidural analgesiaLabor painNetwork meta-analysisSafetyTranscutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation

Identifiers

PMID36934401
PMCPMC10199978
OpenAlexW4327857446

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.