SynthesisFrontiers in psychiatry2024
Efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture in patients with postpartum depression: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in psychiatry, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Mechanism-Driven Translation of Electroacupuncture for Depression: Bridging the Gap Between Preclinical and Clinical Research.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2026Review
- Effects of different electrical stimulation on depression: a protocol for systematic review and network meta-analysis.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2025Article
- Inadequate Evidence for Acupuncture as an Alternative or Adjunct to Antidepressants/Psychotherapy for Postpartum Depression: A Bayesian Systematic Review and Network Meta-Analysis.Neuropsychiatric disease and treatment · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: This study aimed to assess the clinical effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) for the treatment of postpartum depression (PPD). Methods: We systematically retrieved relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from electronic databases, including PubMed, Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, EMBASE, China Science and Technology Journal Database, Chinese Biological Medical Database, and the Wanfang database from their inception to November 2023. The outcomes measured were the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores, Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale (EPDS) scores, adverse events (AEs), and the total response rate. The study aimed to estimate heterogeneity, publication bias, mean difference (MD), and risk ratios (RR) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Results: This study included 12 RCTs with a total of 1364 participants (571 in the treatment group and 793 in the control group) for analysis. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that EA did not significantly reduce HAMD (MD = 1.49, 95% CI = [-0.30, 3.27], P = 0.1, Conclusion: The current evidence indicates that the effectiveness and safety of EA in the treatment of PPD warrant affirmation. However, EA does not demonstrate superiority over sham EA in reducing HAMD and EPDS scores in patients with PPD. Due to the limited quantity and quality of curent research, the above conclusion should be further validated through high-quality studies to confirm the efectiveness of EA in PPD management. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?RecordID=318917, identifier CRD42023318917.
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.