ArticlePerioperative medicine (London, England)2026
Effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation for preemptive analgesia on intraoperative opioid dosage in burn patients: a randomized, double-blind, controlled trial.
Article in Perioperative medicine (London, England), 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
Abstract
backgroundBurn survivors may be at risk of various opioid-related adverse effects. We aimed to investigate whether transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) used for preemptive analgesia in burn patients reduces intraoperative opioid dosage.
methodsIn this trial, 86 burn patients with wound debridement under general anesthesia were randomized to receive thirty minutes of TEAS (TEAS group, n = 43) at acupoints LI4 (Hegu), PC6 (Neiguan), ST36 (Zusanli), and SP6 (Sanyinjiao) before induction of anesthesia or false stimulation (control group, n = 43). The primary outcome was the intraoperative remifentanil dosage. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative propofol dosage, patients’ resting facial-visual analogue scale (F-VAS) scores before stimulation (F1), after stimulation (F2), at 24 h after surgery (F3), and 48 h after surgery (F4), the incidence of opioid-related adverse reactions, and the use of rescue analgesics until the first postoperative day (POD1).
resultsThe dosage of remifentanil showed a significant difference between the two groups, with 0.65(0.45,1.00) in the TEAS group (T group) and 0.90(0.67,1.23) in the control group (C group) (P < 0.05). Meanwhile, there was no significant difference in the intraoperative propofol dosage between groups. F2 and F3 in the T group were lower than those in the C group (P < 0.05), and no significant differences were observed in F1 and F4 (P > 0.05) between the two groups. Until POD1, the incidence of nausea-vomiting and constipation (P < 0.05) in the T group was lower than that the C group, while there was no significant difference in the incidence of drowsiness and dizziness (P > 0.05). It is worth noting that the use of rescue analgesics between the two groups was comparable (P > 0.05).
conclusionsThe preoperative application of TEAS for preemptive analgesia can reduce intraoperative remifentanil dosage. Meanwhile, it has a positive effect on early postoperative analgesia and gastrointestinal adverse reactions.
trial registrationThis study was registered in the Chinese Clinical Trials Registry (ChiCTR2300078615, date of registration: 14/12/2023, retrospectively registered).
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.