SynthesisPloS one2024
Effect of intracutaneous pyonex therapy on postoperative pain management following perianal surgery: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Safety of Acupuncture Using Semi-Permanent Needles in a Pediatric Cancer Unit: A Retrospective Study.Integrative cancer therapiesObservational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intracutaneous pyonex therapy (IPT), a novel acupuncture technique also known as intradermal thumbtack needle embedding therapy, has been reported to optimize postoperative pain management following perianal surgery. This meta-analysis aimed to analyze the efficacy of IPT for postoperative pain management following perianal surgery. The Cochrane Library, PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, CNKI, SinoMed, Wanfang, and VIP databases were systematically searched for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on IPT as a treatment for postoperative pain management following perianal surgery from inception until June 15, 2022. The analyzed outcomes from the eleven RCTs included in this meta-analysis were as follows: postoperative visual analogue scale(VAS), analgesic duration, ineffective cases following treatment, and adverse events. Subgroup analyses were conducted according to different time points. Risk-of-bias assessment, publication bias analysis, sensitivity analysis, and trial sequential analysis were performed. Of the 895 patients, 450 and 445 were included in the IPT and control groups, respectively. The IPT group showed a better analgesic effect[standard mean difference (SMD) = -0.77, 95% CI: -1.00 to -0.53, P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.009, I2 = 59%] and longer analgesic duration [SMD = 0.56, 95% CI: 0.31 to 0.82, P < 0.0001; P for heterogeneity = 0.6, I2 = 0%], fewer ineffective cases following treatment [risk ratio(RR) = 0.23; 95% CI: 0.13 to 0.39, P < 0.00001; P for heterogeneity = 0.76, I2 = 0%], and lower overall occurrence of postoperative complications [RR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.70; P = 0.003; P for heterogeneity = 0.85, I2 = 0%] than the control group. Thus, our findings indicated that IPT can provide better pain management following perianal surgery compared to controls. This novel approach complements a reasonable modality for postoperative multimodal analgesia and is worth promoting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.