SynthesisFrontiers in medicine2024
The effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation on postoperative awakening after general anaesthesia: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Synthesis in Frontiers in medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
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: The existing body of research concerning the impact of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) on early postoperative recovery is marked by a lack of consensus. This meta-analysis, encompassing a systematic review of randomised controlled trials, seeks to critically assess the efficacy of TEAS in relation to awakening from general anaesthesia in the postoperative period. Methods: The inclusion criteria for this study were peer-reviewed randomised controlled trials that evaluated the influence of TEAS on the process of regaining consciousness following general anaesthesia. A comprehensive search was conducted across several reputable databases, including PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, the VIP Database, the SinoMed Database, and the WANFANG Medical Database. The search was not limited by date, extending from the inception of each database up to December 2023. The methodological quality and risk of bias within the included studies were appraised in accordance with the guidelines outlined in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, version 5.1, and its associated tool for assessing risk of bias. Results: The analysis encompassed 29 studies involving a total of 2,125 patients. Participants in the TEAS group demonstrated a significantly shorter duration to achieve eye-opening [mean difference (MD), -3.16 min; 95% confidence interval (CI), -3.93 to -2.39], endotracheal extubation (MD, -4.28 min; 95% CI, -4.79 to -3.76), and discharge from the post-anaesthesia care unit (MD, -8.04 min; 95% CI, -9.48 to -6.61) when compared to the control group receiving no or sham stimulation. Additionally, the TEAS group exhibited markedly reduced mean arterial blood pressure (MD, -9.00 mmHg; 95% CI, -10.69 to -7.32), heart rate (MD, -7.62 beats/min; 95% CI, -9.02 to -6.22), and plasma concentrations of epinephrine (standardised MD, -0.81; 95% CI, -1.04 to -0.58), norepinephrine (MD, -47.67 pg/ml; 95% CI, -62.88 to -32.46), and cortisol (MD, -110.92 nmol/L; 95% CI, -131.28 to -90.56) at the time of extubation. Furthermore, the incidence of adverse effects, including agitation and coughing, was considerably lower in the TEAS group relative to the control group (odds ratio, 0.30; 95% CI, 0.22-0.40). Conclusion: The findings of this study indicate that TEAS may hold promise in facilitating the return of consciousness, reducing the interval to awakening post-general anaesthesia, and enhancing the awakening process to be more tranquil and secure with a diminished likelihood of adverse events. However, caution must be exercised in interpreting these results due to the notable publication and geographical biases present among the studies under review. There is an imperative for further high-quality, low-bias research to substantiate these observations. Systematic review registration: The review protocol was registered with the PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (CRD42022382017).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.