Trial reportBMC pediatrics2025
Effect of magnetic auricular acupuncture on pain during ophthalmic examination of the newborn: a multicenter, triple-blinded, randomized controlled study.
Trial report in BMC pediatrics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
20 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionNewborn eye examination is a painful procedure. Untreated pain experiences in infants have both short-term and long-term consequences, and pain control is essential. Unfortunately, non-pharmacological pain strategies are usually ineffective for complex and protracted procedures, whereas many pharmacologic agents have adverse effects. Magnetic auricular acupuncture (MAA) is a new method of pain relief that is potentially safe and effective. The objective of this study was to conduct a large definitive triple blinded randomized controlled trial of MAA for reducing pain in neonates undergoing ophthalmic examination. The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry (ID number ChiCTR1900027474) on November 14, 2019.
methodsThis was a multi-center randomized controlled trial conducted at 16 tertiary hospitals in the People's Republic of China. Infants were eligible for participation if they were born at 26 to 42 weeks gestational age (GA) and admitted to participating NICUs during the study enrollment period, and scheduled to receive an eye examination for the first time at <44 weeks' corrected GA. Written informed consent was obtained from parents. Infants who were critically ill, dying or receiving sedatives were excluded. Infants randomized to the intervention (MAA) group received magnetic stickers applied prior to the ophthalmic procedure. Control group infants received placebo stickers with the magnets removed. We compared the primary outcome of Premature Infant Pain Profile (PIPP) score during the procedure between the two groups.
resultsA total of 408 patients were randomized, but 14 patients in each of the placebo and intervention groups did not receive ophthalmic examination; leaving 190 patients in control group and 190 in intervention group. Infant characteristics were similar in the two groups, mean PIPP scores during eye exam were significantly lower in the intervention group compared to the control group (median (IQR): 10.00 (5.00,13.00) v 12.00 (7.00,14.00), p = 0.038).
conclusionsMAA may offer an alternative or adjunct to current non-pharmacologic and pharmacologic interventions to alleviate neonatal pain. Future studies should assess combinations of pain interventions and long term outcomes.
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.