Acupuncture-Point Stimulation for Postoperative Pain Control: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Table 5

Summary of meta-analysis results.

Group	Outcome	Number of trials	Number of participants	Statistical method	Effect size		Heterogeneity
Overall effects (AM)
I versus ST	VAS	20	1227	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.05 (−1.44, −0.67)	<0.00001	P < 0.00001; = 89%
I versus S/P	VAS	23	1284	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.72 (−1.03, −0.41)	<0.00001	P < 0.00001; = 85%
Body points (AM)	VAS	24	1370	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.97 (−1.32, −0.62)	<0.00001	P < 0.00001; = 89%
I versus ST	VAS	14	893	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.08 (−1.54, −0.61)	<0.00001	P < 0.00001; = 90%
I versus S/P	VAS	14	693	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.86 (−1.28, −0.45)	<0.0001	P < 0.00001; = 84%
Body points (EA)	VAS	17	928	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.71 (−1.02, −0.40)	<0.00001	P < 0.00001; = 80%
I versus ST	VAS	10	591	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.68 (−1.04, −0.32)	0.0002	P < 0.00001; = 78%
I versus S/P	VAS	9	417	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.67 (−1.13, −0.22)	0.004	P < 0.00001; = 80%
Body points (EA)-NIN	VAS	8	463	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.66 (−1.10, −0.22)	0.003	P < 0.00001; = 80%
Body points (EA)-IN	VAS	10	545	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.67 (−1.11, −0.24)	0.002	P < 0.00001; = 83%
Body points (M)	VAS	3	152	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.55 (−3.91, 0.81)	0.20	P < 0.00001; = 97%
I versus ST	VAS	2	122	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−2.43 (−5.49, 0.46)	0.12	P < 0.00001; = 97%
Body points (A)	VAS	3	214	MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.44 (−2.56, −0.33)	0.01	P < 0.00001; = 92%
Body points (Pla) I versus ST	VAS	2	116	MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−10.85 (−15.59, −6.12)	<0.00001	P = 0.09; = 66%
Body points for AS	VAS	8	471	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.67 (−1.06, −0.29)	0.0006	P = 0.0001; = 76%
Body points for KS	VAS	4	200	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.90 (−2.14, 0.34)	0.16	P < 0.00001; = 94%
Body points for CaS	VAS	2	52	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.94 (−1.52, −0.36)	0.002	P = 0.98; = 0%
Body points for CeS	VAS	2	144	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.81 (−1.15, −0.47)	<0.00001	P = 0.83; = 0%
I versus S/P	VAS	2	116	MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−8.38 (−12.10, −4.65)	<0.0001	P = 0.13; = 56%
Auricular points (AM)	VAS	12	784	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.66 (−1.06, −0.25)	0.001	P < 0.00001; = 86%
I versus ST	VAS	4	225	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.23 (−2.44, −0.03)	0.04	P < 0.00001; = 92%
I versus S/P	VAS	9	591	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.56 (−1.05, −0.07)	0.02	P < 0.00001; = 87%
Auricular points (EM)	VAS	5	404	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.77 (−1.42, −0.12)	0.02	P < 0.00001; = 90%
Auricular points (M)	VAS	4	252	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.16 (−0.62, 0.30)	0.49	P = 0.04; = 64%
Auricular points (EA)	VAS	3	128	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.11 (−1.60, −0.61)	<0.0001	P = 0.19; = 40%
Auricular points for KS	VAS	5	350	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.27 (−0.68, 0.14)	0.20	P = 0.009; = 70%
Auricular points for AS	VAS	2	138	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.19 (−2.12, −0.26)	0.01	P = 0.07; = 70%
Integrative points	VAS/NRS	6	444	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−0.61 (−1.14, −0.07)	0.03	P < 0.0001; = 84%
Integrative points for OS	VAS	2	109	Std. MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−1.87 (−5.69, 1.94)	0.34	P < 0.00001; = 96%
Analgesic requirement	TMC	6	399	MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−4.99 (−7.51, −2.47)	0.0001	P < 0.00001; = 94%
I versus S/P	TMC	2	132	MD (IV, random, 95% CI)	−15.20 (−21.24, −9.16)	<0.00001	P = 1; = 0%

AM, all modalities; VAS, visual analog scale; NRS, numerical rating scale; I, intervention group; ST, standard treatment control group; S/P, sham/placebo control group; EA, electroacupuncture; NIN, noninvasive; IN, invasive; M, manual acupuncture; A, acupressure; Pla, plaster; EM, seed embedding; TMC: total morphine consumption; Std. MD, Std. mean difference; MD, mean difference; AS, abdominal surgery; KS, knee surgery; CaS, cardiac surgery; CeS, cesarean section; OS: oral surgery.
test.