Auricular Therapy to Control Pain in Women With Breast Cancer: Protocol for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The increased incidence of breast cancer implies the appearance of frequent symptoms associated with disease and treatments, such as pain. For the management of this issue, auricular therapy has been used in a complementary manner, especially for its safety and analgesic action. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aims to summarize available evidence on the effects of auricular therapy on pain in women undergoing breast cancer treatment. METHODS: This is a systematic review that includes randomized controlled trials that evaluated the effects of auricular therapy on pain in women with breast cancer, as compared with other interventions (sham or placebo auricular therapy, other nonpharmacological interventions, and routine pain treatments) during the treatment of the disease. Pain, whether induced or not by cancer treatments, is the main outcome to be evaluated. The search for the studies was performed in the following databases: MEDLINE through PubMed, CINAHL, CENTRAL, Embase, Web of Science, Scopus, VHL, TCIM Americas Network, CNKI, and Wanfang Data. The reviewers have independently evaluated the full texts, and in the near future, they will extract the data and assess the risk of bias in the included studies. The certainty of the evidence will be assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE), and a meta-analysis will be carried out to evaluate the intervention, considering the homogeneity of the results, using the Cochran Q test and quantified by the Higgins inconsistency index. The guidelines of the PRISMA-P (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols) have been respected in the elaboration of this protocol. RESULTS: The records screening stage has been completed, and the synthesis and meta-analysis were conducted in February 2024. We hope to have finished the preparation of the paper for publication by September 2024. Review reporting will follow standard guidelines for reporting systematic reviews. The results will be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. CONCLUSIONS: This review will compile the strength of evidence for the use of auricular therapy in the management of pain in women with breast cancer during the treatment of the disease, identifying gaps in the available evidence as well as assisting health professionals in indicating the intervention for clinical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022382433; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=382433. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): DERR1-10.2196/55792.
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 | 0.053 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.037 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.051 | 0.004 |
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".