SynthesisFrontiers in neurology
The effect of acupoint stimulation as an adjuvant therapy for obsessive-compulsive disorder: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in neurology. 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) is a debilitating psychiatric condition associated with significant functional impairment. Acupoint stimulation (AS), encompassing techniques such as electroacupuncture, acupuncture, and transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation, is a widely used therapeutic approach. However, a comprehensive synthesis of evidence regarding its efficacy and safety as an adjunctive therapy for OCD is needed. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of AS as an adjunctive treatment for OCD. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was conducted across seven electronic databases from their inception to February 2026. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating AS for OCD were included. Two reviewers independently screened records, extracted data, and assessed methodological quality using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool (ROB 2.0). Statistical analyses were performed using Review Manager 5.4. Results: This review included 23 RCTs involving 1,713 participants. Compared with the controls, AS was associated with greater improvement in OCD. It was associated with a statistically significant reduction in obsessive-compulsive symptoms as measured by the Yale-Brown Obsessive Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) (MD = -3.14, 95% CI [-4.46, -1.81], Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that AS, whether used alone or as an adjunct to pharmacotherapy or CBT, was associated with a mean reduction of approximately 3.14 points on the Y-BOCS. On a 0-40 scale, with substantial heterogeneity across studies, variable control conditions, and inconsistent methodological quality, this reduction is statistically significant but of uncertain clinical relevance. The evidence does not support a firm conclusion that AS is clinically effective, and the safety data are insufficient to establish AS as safe. Further high-quality trials with standardized protocols are needed. Systematic review registration: CRD420251070503.
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.