Are Acupuncture and Acupressure effective in decreasing chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in children?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Acupuncture and acupressure are some of the most common non-pharmacological treatment modalities in the world, with evidence suggesting they may be useful in treating chronic diseases. There is a growing body of literature that suggests that acutherapy is effective in treating chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV) in adults, but few trials and reviews have been conducted on the effect of acutherapy in children. Thus, the primary objective of this review was to provide a robust and comprehensive summary of the existing literature on the efficacy of acupuncture and acupressure to treat CINV, with a specific focus on youth aged five to eighteen years. The secondary objective was to evaluate how the acupoints’ anatomical and physiological nerve connections affect nausea and vomiting reflexes. The most effective acupoints reported were Pericardium 6 (PC-6), Large Intestines 4 (LI-4), and Stomach 36 (ST-36). Acupuncture at ST-36 and PC-6 was suggested to stimulate the vagus nerve, vestibular system, and/or modulate neurotransmitters to help control nausea and vomiting. Future research should increase clinical trial cohorts to detect statistically significant differences if they exist, focus on specific acupoints to determine the efficacy of each point, and explore the impact of the placebo effect on sham acupuncture. A double blinded clinical trial design was proposed in this paper to address this long standing conundrum about the placebo effect in acupuncture procedures.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".