Electroacupuncture for postoperative recovery of gastrointestinal function in patients with gastrointestinal cancers: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) for postoperative recovery in patients with gastrointestinal (GI) cancers. Methods We retrieved articles from PubMed, Embase, OVID, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CINAHL, SinoMed, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, and Technology Journal Database (VIP) from database inception to November 1 2024. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that examining the use of EA to improve GI function, reduce pain, and promote self-care ability after GI cancer surgery were included. Based on the type of control interventions, separate meta-analyses were conducted for EA vs postoperative nursing (PN) and EA vs sham acupuncture (SA). The primary outcomes were the time to first flatus (TFF) and the time to first defecation (TFD). The secondary outcomes included the time to recovery of bowel sounds (TRBS), the time to tolerance of liquid diet (TTLD), the time to tolerance of semiliquid diet (TTSD), the time to independent walking (TIW), the length of hospitalization (LH), and visual analog scale (VAS) immediate resting pain scores measured on the first, second and third postoperative days (POD 1-3). Results are reported as mean differences (MDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). RevMan 5.3 was used for meta-analysis, StataSE 15.1 was used for sensitivity analyses and Egger’s tests. This study was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42022314754). Results A total of 19 RCTs involving 1902 participants were included, all of which were conducted in China between 2004 and 2023. When EA compared with PN, the meta-analysis showed EA significantly reduce TFF (n = 673, MD = -13.14, 95% CI = [-18.97 to -7.31], P < 0.00001), TFD (n = 598, MD = -19.86, 95% CI = [-27.83 to -11.89], P < 0.00001), TRBS (n = 216, MD = -12.44, 95% CI = [-15.00 to -9.87], P < 0.00001), TTLD (n = 268, MD = -18.14, 95% CI = [-24.98 to -11.29], P < 0.00001), TTSD (n = 141, MD = -20.44, 95% CI = [-33.84 to -7.04], P = 0.003), VAS on POD 1 (n = 299, MD = -0.52, 95% CI = [-0.92 to -0.11], P = 0.01), VAS on POD 2 (n = 256, MD = -0.91, 95% CI = [-1.23 to -0.60], P < 0.00001), VAS on POD 3 (n = 203, MD = -0.57, 95% CI = [-0.80 to -0.34], P < 0.00001), while no significantly decreasing in the LH (n = 322, MD = -1.16, 95% CI = [-2.56 to 0.24], P = 0.10). As EA compared with SA, EA could significantly reduce TFF (n = 782, MD = -15.78, 95% CI = [-24.96 to -6.60], P = 0.0008), TFD (n = 782, MD = -20.42, 95% CI = [-36.14 to -4.70], P = 0.01), LH (n = 782, MD = -1.37, 95% CI = [-2.69 to -0.05], P = 0.04), TIW (n = 743, MD = -0.33, 95% CI = [-0.62 to -0.04], P = 0.03).13 studies reported that EA reduced the incidence of postoperative complications, and 7 studies reported safety assessments of acupuncture-related adverse events, including hematoma, residual needling, sharp pain, pain, soreness or swelling after needle removal, with no serious adverse events. Conclusion EA can significantly promote the recovery of GI function, reduce postoperative pain and accelerate the improvement of self-care ability in patients undergoing surgery for GI cancers.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,018 | 0,004 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,003 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; les deux têtes enseignantes s’accordent sur ce qui est montré ici.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».