SynthesisBMC surgery2026
Effect of transcutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation on recovery following gynecological laparoscopic surgery: a meta-analysis.
Synthesis in BMC surgery, 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
Abstract
backgroundTranscutaneous electrical acupoint stimulation (TEAS) is a non-invasive therapy that combines low-frequency neurostimulation with the application of acupoints. Several studies have demonstrated the efficacy of TEAS for post-operative complications following gynecological laparoscopy. This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of TEAS for recovery following gynecological laparoscopic surgery.
methodsSeven electronic databases (CNKI, Wanfang, VIP, Embase, Web of Science, PubMed, Cochrane) were searched up to 24 September 2025. Continuous outcomes were pooled as mean differences (MDs) and dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs), both with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomized trials (RoB 1). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess robustness, and publication bias was evaluated using funnel plots and Egger’s test where appropriate. Meta-analysis was conducted using Stata 15.0 and Review Manager 5.4 software.
resultsA total of thirty studies (n = 2,573 patients) were ultimately included in the analysis. Notably, the meta-analysis findings indicated that TEAS treatment reduced postoperative pain in gynecological laparoscopic surgery patients at 6 h [MD = -0.64, 95% CI (-1.17, -0.12)], 12 h [MD = -0.85, 95% CI (-1.35, -0.35)], 24 h [MD = -0.92, 95% CI (-1.29, -0.55)], and 48 h [MD = -0.75, 95% CI (-1.30, -0.20)] postoperatively. Additionally, TEAS significantly reduced the incidence of PONV [RR = 0.50, 95% CI (0.44, 0.57)], and shortened the time to first flatus [MD = − 7.52, 95% CI (− 10.17, − 4.87)], defecation[MD = -15.12, 95% CI (-21.97, -8.26)] and time to bowel sound recovery[MD = -4.80, 95% CI (-7.67, -1.93)]. It also markedly improved QoR-15 [MD = 2.87, 95% CI (1.15, 4.60)] and MMSE scores [MD = 1.80, 95% CI (0.40, 3.19)].
conclusionsThe meta-analysis suggests that TEAS may be associated with improved postoperative recovery after gynecological laparoscopy, particularly with respect to pain, PONV, and gastrointestinal recovery. However, it is important to note that the number and quality of included studies were limited. The certainty of evidence is limited by methodological weaknesses and substantial heterogeneity in several continuous outcomes. Therefore, the findings should be interpreted cautiously and require confirmation through further high-quality research.
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.