SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2025
Efficacy of acupoint-related therapies for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy: a Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Bayesian network meta-analysis was used to compare the efficacy of different acupoint-related treatments for Nausea and Vomiting of Pregnancy (NVP). Methods: PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wan Fang, and VIP databases were systematically searched from the time of library construction to February 20, 2025, to include randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupoint-related treatments for the treatment of nausea and vomiting in pregnancy. Literature screening, data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by two investigators, Bayesian network Meta-analysis was performed by R4.4.1 software. Result: A total of 38 studies containing 1,164 patients were included, this Bayesian network meta-analysis assessed the efficacy of various treatments for NVP across multiple outcomes. Results indicated that Acupoint Application (AA), Acupressure, Auriculotherapy Acupoint Application (ATAA), Ginger Moxibustion Acupoint Application (GMAA), and Moxibustion Acupoint Application (Mox_AA) were significantly more effective than Press Needle (PN) in improving PUQE scores. Thunder Fire Moxibustion (TFM) ranked highest in efficacy (89.1%), followed by GMAA (74.2%) and Acupressure (70.3%). Regarding overall efficacy, AA was less effective than AA_WA (OR = 0.22) and Acupuncture (OR = 0.44), but more effective than usual care (UT) (OR = 3.76), with AA_WA ranking highest (84.7%). In terms of NVP quality of life, TCM_acupuncture showed the greatest benefit (MD = 30.43), significantly outperforming AA (MD = -42.54), Mox_AA, and UT. Overall, TCM_acupuncture emerged as the most effective treatment for both symptom relief and quality of life improvement, followed by Mox_AA and ATAA, while UT was the least effective across all measures. Conclusion: Overall, the analyses showed that TFM may be the most effective in treating NVP, followed by GMAA and ear pressure therapy. Compared to PN, AA, auricular pressure therapy, ATAA and GMAA were more effective. AA was more effective than UT, but not as effective as AA_WA and acupuncture. In terms of quality-of-life improvement, TCM_acupuncture may be the most effective, followed by Mox_AA and ATAA, and UT was the least effective. Overall, acupuncture-based treatments, especially Thunder Fire Moxibustion and TCM acupuncture, performed better in the treatment of NVP.
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.