ArticleBMJ open2026
Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation for postoperative pain: a protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Article 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionPostoperative pain is common after surgery, with a high incidence and risk of becoming chronic. Current multimodal analgesia has drawbacks, including limited efficacy from single agents and opioid side effects and addiction risk. These issues have led to opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia. Transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS) is non-invasive and convenient. Studies have shown it can reduce postoperative pain, improve mood and lower adverse events. However, taVNS lacks a comprehensive evaluation and standardised protocols, so further research is needed to provide reliable evidence. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study strictly adheres to the guidelines of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols. To identify suitable randomised controlled trials (RCTs), eight credible databases will be searched, including four English databases (Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE) and four Chinese databases (China National Knowledge Infrastructure, VIP Database for Chinese Technical Periodicals, Wanfang Database, Chinese Biomedical Literature Database). RevMan V.5.3 will be employed to integrate the retrieved data and conduct meta-analyses. The methodological quality of included RCTs will be evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Assessment 2.0 tool. Additionally, the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system will be applied to assess the strength and certainty of the evidence. We will also conduct publication bias analyses, sensitivity analyses and subgroup analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical review is required as no private or confidential patient data will be included. Results of this study will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD420251207651.
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.