ReviewJournal of pain research2026
Efficacy and Proposed Mechanisms of Electroacupuncture in Animal Models of Chemotherapy-Induced Peripheral Neuropathy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.
Review in Journal of pain research, 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
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Chemotherapy-induced peripheral neuropathy (CIPN) is a common dose-limiting toxicity of chemotherapy with few effective treatment options. Electroacupuncture (EA) has demonstrated promising clinical efficacy, yet its preclinical evidence remains fragmented, limiting mechanistic understanding and translational application. This systematic review and meta-analysis evaluated the efficacy of EA in animal models of CIPN and synthesized the underlying mechanisms. Methods: Seven databases were systematically searched from inception to June 24, 2026, for controlled animal studies investigating EA for CIPN. The primary outcome was mechanical withdrawal threshold (MWT); secondary outcomes included thermal withdrawal latency (PWL), adhesive removal test (ART) responsive time, sciatic nerve conduction velocity (SNCV), and intra-epidermal nerve fiber density (IENFs). Methodological quality was assessed using SYRCLE, and reporting quality using ARRIVE 2.0. Meta-analyses were conducted by Stata 18.0 and R 4.5.2. Results: 21 studies involving 451 animals were included. SYRCLE scores ranged from 6 to 7, and ARRIVE scores from 9.5 to 15.5, indicating moderate quality. Meta-analysis revealed that EA significantly increased MWT (standardized mean difference [SMD] = 4.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 3.34 to 5.34, Conclusion: Preclinical evidence demonstrates that EA effectively alleviates pain-like behaviors, improves sensory recovery, and enhances neurological function in CIPN models through multi-target mechanisms. These findings support EA as a promising intervention warranting further research.
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.