SynthesisBMJ open2026
Effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture combined with conventional therapy for peripheral facial palsy: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMJ open, 2026. 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate the effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture (EA), alone or combined with conventional therapy, for peripheral facial palsy.
designSystematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP and SinoMed/CBM were searched from inception to 15 July 2026. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Chinese-language or English-language randomised trials enrolling patients with peripheral facial palsy and comparing an EA-containing regimen with a control regimen were eligible when at least one prespecified clinical outcome was reported. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 1.0. Random-effects risk ratios (RRs) were used for cure and total effective rates, standardised mean differences (SMDs) for facial-function scales and a Mantel-Haenszel OR for adverse events. Control-comparator and end-of-treatment timing subgroups were explored, and certainty was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
results10 trials involving 888 participants were included. Outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment: three trials within 3 weeks, three at about 1 month and four at unclear or course-based endpoints. EA-containing regimens may improve cure and total effective rates (cure: RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.67; I²=57.0%; total effective rate: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.36; I²=81.6%). Three independent trials reported facial function (SMD 1.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.30; I²=94.4%). Two trials reported adverse events (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22; I²=0%). Comparator subgroup differences were exploratory because two comparator categories contained only one study each. Certainty was low for all outcomes.
conclusionsEA-containing regimens may improve short-term clinical response, but substantial heterogeneity, low-certainty evidence, variable comparators and limited follow-up preclude firm conclusions.
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.