ReviewJournal of multidisciplinary healthcare2025
Practical Applications and Safety of Battlefield Acupuncture for Pain Management: A Systematic Literature Review.
Review in Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Application of auricular therapy in postherpetic neuralgia: a scoping review.Frontiers in molecular neuroscience · 2026Pooled it
- Site-Dependent Patterns of Affective Interference Control and Inhibitory Braking Following Auricular Stimulation.Applied psychophysiology and biofeedback · 2026Article
- Toward Precision Acupuncture for Pain: Host Genetic Variability, Omics Biomarkers, and Treatment-Response Stratification.Human mutation · 2026Review
- Study on the Central Neural Pathways Connecting the Brain and Peripheral Acupoints Using Neural Tracers.CNS neuroscience & therapeutics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Pain is complex and subjective, causing physical and psychological damage. Western medical treatments are prone to dependence, gastrointestinal problems, and organ damage. Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) integrates traditional Chinese medicine with contemporary military medicine, achieving a rapid analgesic effect. In the domain of pain management, it is effective. Despite controversy, it is recommended as an analgesic for pain populations. Purpose: The present study evaluated the clinical efficacy and safety of BFA, with a view to informing pain management strategies and validating its credibility. Methods: Databases including PubMed, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and Embase were searched from 2015-2025. Randomized controlled studies(RCTs) on BFA for pain were included. Outcome measurements were pain scores and adverse event rates. Two authors independently assessed studies using the Cochrane risk of bias tool for randomized trials(RoB-1). Heterogeneity was addressed via narrative synthesis. Results: Of 800 articles screened, 11 RCTs (n=1,232; BFA: 530 patients) matched criteria. BFA was compared with opioids, non-opioids, exercise or physical therapies for various types of pain. Four studies reported lower BFA pain scores, and four found no difference. No severe adverse event rates were noted, but mild reactions were recorded. RoB grades: two A, eight B, one C. Conclusion: Evidence supports the efficacy and safety of BFA for acute pain. The utilisation of BFA in the context of alleviating mild to moderate pain is recommended, particularly in conjunction with electroacupuncture therapies.However, limitations include small sample sizes, blinding issues, and inconsistent protocols. Research into specific pain types and long-term efficacy should be focused on. Registration: PROSPERO CRD420251011281.
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.