ReviewJournal of pain research2025
Clinical Efficacy and Safety of Auricular Acupuncture for Migraine: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Review 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 1 paper, 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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Efficacy of auriculotherapy in reducing pain: a comprehensive literature review.Frontiers in pain research (Lausanne, Switzerland) · 2026Pooled it
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: Migraine is a prevalent and debilitating neurological disorder that results in significant disability and imposes a substantial socioeconomic burden. Auricular Acupuncture (AA) has emerged as a potential therapeutic intervention for alleviating migraine symptoms. Although AA is extensively utilized clinically to treat migraines, a reanalysis investigating its benefits and risks, whose studies were conducted exclusively in China, indicated that notable enhancements in four outcomes relative to controls were achieved by AA. Methods: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AA for migraine. Eight databases were searched from inception to April 18, 2025. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were performed to evaluate the robustness of the findings and to identify potential sources of heterogeneity. All results were assessed using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework. Data analyses were conducted using Review Manager 5.4. Results: Specifically, the visual analog scale (VAS) showed a mean difference (MD) of -0.65 (95% Confidence Intervals (CI): -0.86, -0.43; p<0.001) in ten RCTs involving 766 participants were included. Additionally, migraine attack frequency demonstrated an MD of -0.49 (95% CI: -0.59, -0.40; p<0.001) and attack duration had an MD of -0.58 (95% CI: -0.64, -0.52; p<0.001). The clinical effectiveness rate (CER) was reflected in a relative risk of 1.17 (95% CI: 1.10, 1.25; p<0.001). Conclusion: Research evidence indicates that AA offers both efficacy and safety in the treatment of migraines. However, inferences resulting from this investigation face constraints arising from the methodological robustness of trials incorporated herein. To better define the role of AA in clinical guidelines, additional high-quality RCTs with expanded scope of population, standardized protocols and extended follow-up periods are required. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251028201.
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.