Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42563806›Full record

ReviewJournal of Korean biological nursing science2024

The effects of ear acupressure therapy on obstetric and gynecological pain in women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Mi-Kyoung Cho, Mi Young Kim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Korean biological nursing science, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Mi-Kyoung ChoDepartment of Nursing Science, Research Institute of Nursing Science, Chungbuk National University, Cheongju, Korea.ORCID 0000-0003-1406-1149
Mi Young KimCollege of Nursing, Hanyang University, Seoul, Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-5724-0337

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of ear acupressure therapy on obstetric and gynecological (OBGY) pain in women through a systematic review and meta-analysis, providing foundational data on complementary and alternative therapies. Methods: Using the PICO-SD framework, searches were conducted across seven electronic databases: PubMed, Cochrane, EMBASE-OVID, CINAHL, Web of Science, Scopus, and RISS. The population (P) was women; the intervention (I) included ear acupressure, acupuncture, or auriculotherapy; the control (C) was usual obstetric care or placebo therapy; the outcome (O) was pain; and the study design (SD) was a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Revised Checklist for RCTs. Meta-regression and exclusion sensitivity analyses were also performed. Results: Sixteen studies were included, with a pooled overall effect size of Hedge's g = -1.41 (95% confidence interval: -1.96 to -0.86). Meta-regression revealed that factors such as publication year, region, institutional review board approval, funding, sample size, type of pain, intervention type, tools, stimulus points, control group type, intervention duration, session count, session time, outcome measurement time, and quality assessment scores significantly influenced pain reduction. Conclusion: The findings confirm that ear acupressure therapy effectively reduces OBGY pain. However, given the variations in application methods and resulting differences in effectiveness, it is necessary to carefully consider factors such as tools, stimulus points, intervention methods, control group interventions, duration, session count, and session time when applying the therapy.

Indexed as

AcupressureGynecologyMeta-analysisPainSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID42563806
PMCPMC13268326

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.