Cardiovascular effects of auricular stimulation -a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The number of randomized controlled trials using auricular stimulation (AS) such as transauricular vagus nerve stimulation, or other auricular electrostimulation or auricular acupuncture or acupressure, in experimental and clinical settings, has increased markedly over the last three decades. This systematic review focusses on cardiovascular effects of auricular stimulation. Methods and analysis: The following databases were searched: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, and Scopus Database. RCTs were reviewed that had been published in English and European languages. Data collection and analysis was conducted by two reviewers independently. Quality and risk assessment of included studies was performed and the meta-analysis of the effect of the most frequently assessed biomarkers. Results: Altogether, 78 trials were included. 38 studies assessed heart rate (HR), 19 studies analyzed heart rate variability (HRV), 31 studies analyzed blood pressure (BP) and 7 studies were identified that measured oxygen saturation (O2), 2 studies on baroreflex sensitivity and 2 studies on skin conductance were evaluated in this review. 26 studies contained continuous data and were eligible for meta-analysis, 50 trials reported non continuous data and were evaluated descriptively. The overall quality of the studies was moderate to low. AS leads to a significant reduction of HR, the changes though were not considered an adverse reaction. Furthermore, when looking at HRV, AS was able to reduce the LF/HF ratio significantly compared to control procedures. No other cardiovascular parameters (blood pressure, oxygen saturation, baroreflex sensitivity) were changed significantly. AS produced only minor side effects in all trials. Conclusion: AS can lead to clinically safe reduction of HR and changes in the LF/HF ratio of the HRV, which is presumably via an increase in vagal activity. More research is needed to clarify whether AS can be used to modulate tachycardia or indications with autonomic imbalance. Systematic review registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=231885 PROSPERO, ID CRD42021231885.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.027 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.023 | 0.029 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".