Trial reportJournal of pain research2025
Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) Facilitates Postoperative Recovery in Day Lung Cancer Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.
Trial report in Journal of pain research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Effectiveness of electrical stimulation for postoperative rehabilitation of lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Journal of thoracic disease · 2026Article
- Effect of Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation on Postoperative Urinary Retention After Radical Hysterectomy for Cervical Cancer: Study Protocol for A Pilot Randomized Controlled Trial.International journal of women's health · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Day thoracic surgery requires effective analgesia and a rapid recovery. This study evaluated whether Transcutaneous Electrical Acupoint Stimulation (TEAS) reduces postoperative pain and analgesic use in lung cancer surgery. Methods: In this randomized, sham-controlled trial at a tertiary hospital in Shanghai, 100 patients (18-70 years old, ASA I-II) who underwent day lung cancer surgery (video-assisted thoracoscopic pulmonary wedge resection) were enrolled. Participants were randomized to receive either TEAS or sham TEAS in the Post-Anesthesia Care Unit. The TEAS group received 30 minutes of stimulation at Hegu (LI4) and Neiguan (PC6), whereas the sham group received electrode placement without stimulation. Primary outcome was pain intensity 24 h after surgery, measured using the visual analog scale (VAS). Secondary outcomes were VAS scores at 1 h and 12 h post-surgery, analgesic consumption, incidence of moderate-to-severe pain (VAS score >4), incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), Quality of Recovery (QoR-15) scores, and safety events. Results: The TEAS group had significantly lower VAS scores at 1 hour (0.94 vs 1.84, p = 0.006), 12 hours (2.00 vs 5.40, p < 0.001), and 24 hours (1.72 vs 4.02, p < 0.001). The incidence of moderate-to-severe pain within 12 hours was reduced (12.0% vs 74.0%, p < 0.001). Analgesic consumption was lower in the TEAS group. The QoR-15 scores at 24 h were higher in the TEAS group (130.8 vs 115.9, p < 0.001). No significant differences were observed in PONV, length of hospital stay, or adverse events. Conclusion: TEAS reduces postoperative pain and analgesic use, improves the recovery quality in lung cancer surgery, and supports its integration into ERAS protocols. Trial Registration: ChiCTR2200066600. https://www.chictr.org.cn/showproj.html?proj=187035.
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.