MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401376102 · doi:10.3389/fnins.2024.1393826

Effects of auricular stimulation on weight- and obesity-related parameters: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

2024· review· en· W4401376102 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Hua, Taras Usichenko, Mike Cummings, Miriam Bernatik, Stefan N. Willich, Benno Brinkhaus, Joanna Dietzel

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Neuroscience · 2024
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicVagus Nerve Stimulation Research
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialMedicineStimulationPhysical medicine and rehabilitationObesityPhysical therapyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Over the last three decades, the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) using stimulation of auricular vagal sensory nerves by means of electrical stimulation, auricular acupuncture, or acupressure to support weight loss has increased markedly. This systematic review focuses on the effects of auricular stimulation (AS) on anthropometric parameters and obesity-related blood chemistry. Methods and analysis The following databases were searched until November 2021: MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science, and Scopus Database. Data collection and analysis were conducted by two reviewers independently. Quality and risk assessment of included studies was performed using the risk of bias tool of the Cochrane Handbook, and the meta-analysis of the effect of the most frequently assessed biomarkers was conducted using the statistical software RevMan. Results The full texts of 1,274 studies were screened; 22 contained data on obesity-related outcomes, and 15 trials with 1,333 patients were included in the meta-analysis. The overall quality of the included trials was moderate. AS significantly reduced body mass index (BMI) (mean difference (MD) = −0.38 BMI points, 95% CI (−0.55 to −0.22), p < 0.0001), weight (MD = −0.66 kg, 95% CI (−1.12 to −0.20), p = 0.005), waist circumference (MD = −1.44 cm, 95% CI (−2.69 to −0.20), p = 0.02), leptin, insulin, and HOMA insulin resistance compared to controls. No significant reduction was found in body fat, hip circumference, ratio of waist/hip circumference, cholesterol, LDL, triglycerides, adiponectin, ghrelin, and glucose levels. The AS was safe throughout the trials, with only minor adverse reactions. Conclusion The study results suggest that a reduction of weight and BMI can be achieved by AS in obese patients; however, the size of the effect does not appear to be of clinical relevance. The effects might be underestimated due to active sham trials. Systematic review registration https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.031
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.936
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0310.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0400.007
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.198
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.268 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in NeuroscienceSame topicVagus Nerve Stimulation ResearchFrench-language works237,207