Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38104041›Full record

SynthesisArchives of gynecology and obstetrics2024

Efficacy and safety of acupressure in nausea and vomiting during pregnancy: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

Xinhui Wang, Guangyi Yang, Ke Li, Fujing Yang, Xiaoyu Liang, Shangping Wu

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Archives of gynecology and obstetrics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
2.6field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Observational
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Xinhui WangSchool of Management, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Guangyi YangSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Ke LiSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100029, China. like447179984@163.com.ORCID 0000-0002-6530-2566
Fujing YangSchool of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Xiaoyu LiangQi-Huang Chinese Medicine School, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Shangping WuSchool of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, 100029, China.
Beijing University of Chinese Medicine · CN

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThe purpose of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of acupressure on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.

methodsPubMed, Embase, Springer, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library were searched for all randomized controlled trials (RCT) of treating nausea and vomiting during pregnancy by acupressure from the inception date of database to July 31st, 2023. Study selection, data extraction, and risk of bias assessment were conducted independently by researchers. The methodological quality of included studies was evaluated by the Cochrane Collaboration's bias risk assessment tool, meta-analysis by Stata 17.0 software, and publication bias by Begg's test.

resultsA total of 11 RCTs involving 1378 pregnant women were included in this review, which was assessed to be moderate quality. 10 RCTs involving 1298 pregnant women were assessed for the meta-analysis. The results revealed that acupressure showed significant difference on improvement in symptom score compared with sham acupressure (pooled MD, - 1.33; 95%CI [- 2.06, - 0.61]; P < 0.001) or control group (pooled MD, - 0.73; 95%CI [- 1.08, - 0.39]; P < 0.001), and incidence of effective rate compared with sham acupressure group (pooled RR, 1.78; 95%CI [1.03, 3.07]; P = 0.039). However, no statistical significance was found between acupressure and control group (pooled RR, 4.53; 95%CI [0.67, 30.48]; P = 0.120) on effective rate. On comparing acupressure with sham acupressure, there was no beneficial effect on preventing nausea and vomiting during pregnancy (pooled RR, 0.83; 95%CI [0.50, 1.38]; P = 0.476), shortening the duration of hospital stay (pooled MD, - 0.78; 95%CI [- 1.98, 0.41]; P = 0.199) and improving patient satisfaction (pooled RR, 1.36; 95%CI [0.47, 3.91]; P = 0.570). Begg's test did not reveal any publication bias. Only one RCT reported minimal acupressure-related adverse events.

conclusionAcupressure may have potential favorable or encouraging effect on treating nausea and vomiting during pregnancy, but strong supportive data are not yet available. Well-designed and large-scale RCTs should be conducted for assessing and confirming the efficacy and safety of acupressure in nausea and vomiting during pregnancy.

Indexed as

AcupressureNauseaRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicFemaleHumansPregnancyPregnancy ComplicationsTreatment OutcomeVomitingAcupressureMeta-analysisNauseaPregnancySystematic reviewVomiting

Identifiers

PMID38104041
OpenAlexW4389831850

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.