Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Jun 6;18(6):e0286790. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0286790

Effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for the prevention of emergence agitation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Takahiro Mihara 1,2,*,#, Daisuke Nakajima 1,3,#, Toshiyuki Hijikata 1, Makoto Tomita 1, Takahisa Goto 3
Editor: Huijuan Cao4
PMCID: PMC10243631  PMID: 37279209

Abstract

This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy in preventing emergence agitation (EA) in children. A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted across multiple locations according to the articles searched. Seven databases, including trial registration sites, were searched. A total of six trials were included involving 489 patients; of them, 244 received acupuncture therapy. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) evaluating the incidence of EA compared with placebo/sham or standard care in children were included. The primary outcome was the incidence of EA, as evaluated using a specific assessment tool. Data about the incidence rate of EA, heterogeneity, quality of trials and evidence, and adverse events were collected. Additionally, data about patient demographic characteristics, type of anesthesia, duration and onset of acupuncture therapy, EA and pain score, time taken for extubation, and post-anesthesia care unit length of stay were collected. The results indicated that the overall incidence of EA in the acupuncture therapy group and the control group was 23.4% and 39.5%, respectively, with no significant difference (risk ratio, 0.62; 95% confidence interval, 0.26–1.48; I2 = 63%). Subgroup analysis showed a significant difference in the overall incidence of EA in the acupuncture therapy and control groups according to surgery type (high-risk vs. low-risk surgery), suggesting that acupuncture therapy may be effective in reducing EA for patients undergoing high-risk surgery. The quality of evidence was downgraded to “very low” due to the study designs, inconsistency, and possible publication bias. In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that the currently available RCTs are insufficient to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy in preventing EA in children undergoing general anesthesia.

Introduction

Emergence agitation (EA) is a significant concern among pediatric patients undergoing general anesthesia, with a reported incidence ranging from 10% to 80% [1]. Sikich and Lerman [2] characterized emergence delirium, a primary factor contributing to EA, as follows: “a disturbance in a child’s awareness of and attention to his or her environment with disorientation and perceptual alterations including hypersensitivity to stimuli and hyperactive motor behavior in the immediate post-anesthesia period.” Restless recovery from anesthesia may increase the risk of self-injury and require additional administration of sedatives or analgesic medications, which may delay the patient’s discharge from the hospital. Moreover, EA often requires constant nursing supervision, which strains the nursing staff and induces stress in caregivers and families [1, 3].

Pharmacological agents are commonly administered to prevent EA, including propofol, fentanyl, dexmedetomidine, and clonidine [48]; however, these pharmacological agents may often cause adverse events, such as delayed recovery, vomiting, and respiratory depression [8, 9]. Therefore, alternative methods to prevent EA are necessary. One suggested method is acupuncture therapy, which has been shown to prevent EA with no adverse event and no requirement for pharmacotherapy [10, 11]; however, its efficacy remains controversial [12].

In children, acupuncture therapy has been found to be a safe and promising complementary or alternative treatment method because of its efficacy and low risk [13]. Stimulating an acupuncture point on the wrist (P6 acupoint stimulation) during the perioperative period can reduce the risk of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children [14]. A potential acupoint for suppressing emergence agitation in pediatric anesthesia is HT7 (Shenmen). HT7 is recognized as an acupoint that promotes tranquility [15]. In animal studies, the therapeutic effects of HT7 acupuncture therapy on psychiatric and neurological disorders have been documented [16, 17]. However, the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for preventing EA in children remains unclear [12]; additionally, meta-analyses regarding its effectiveness remain lacking. Furthermore, the methodologies of these previous studies varied according to acupuncture therapy, stimulation point selection, and surgery type.

The primary purpose of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy in preventing EA in children undergoing general anesthesia. The secondary purpose was to assess adverse events and conduct subgroup analyses based on the following predefined factors: (i) method of acupuncture therapy; (ii) selection of points (unilateral or bilateral); and (iii) type of surgery (high-risk surgery for EA or not).

Materials and methods

We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis (TSA). This meta-analysis was performed according to the recommendations of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement [18] and the Cochrane Handbook [19]. Our study protocol and methods were pre-specified and registered on the University Hospital Medical Information Network (Registration number: 000040775) and has been published previously elsewhere [20].

Search strategy

We searched PubMed, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Embase, and Web of Science databases. We also searched the databases of clinicaltrials.gov, the European Union Clinical Trials Register, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and the Japanese University hospital Medical Information Network Clinical Trials Registry. We also searched the reference lists of the retrieved articles. The last search was conducted on April 20, 2022. The PubMed search strategy is provided in S1 Appendix in S1 File.

To exclude irrelevant articles, two authors (D.N. and T.H.) independently assessed the suitability of the titles and abstracts of the studies identified by the search strategies. We retrieved the full-text versions of potentially relevant studies selected by at least one author, and those that met the inclusion criteria were examined separately. Discrepancies were resolved by consensus through discussion between the two authors.

Inclusion criteria

We include randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that evaluated the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy in preventing EA compared with a placebo, no medication, or standard care in children undergoing general anesthesia. Articles with the following characteristics were excluded from the study: (i) the incidence of EA was not evaluated using a specific assessment tool such as the Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale, Aono’s scale, and other numeric scales; (ii) participants were aged >18 years; and (iii) the articles were not based on a study following the RCT design, such as case reports, observational studies, comments, reviews, and animal studies. Eligibility was not restricted by language, type of surgery, or the anesthetic technique.

Outcomes

Primary outcome

The primary outcome was the incidence of EA evaluated using a specific assessment tool. EA incidence was defined according to the criteria established in each study. In cases where EA was classified by severity, the numbers of patients were identified for all degrees of severity and summated. In cases where EA was evaluated at several time points, the time point immediately after emergence (i.e., the earliest time point in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) or recovery room) was used to extract the data representing acute EA.

Secondary outcomes

The secondary outcomes were the absolute values of EA and pain scores evaluated using specific assessment tools. Additionally, the incidence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting, time taken for extubation, and PACU length of stay were analyzed.

Data collection

A standardized, pre-piloted form was used to extract data from the included studies. The extracted information included: (i) number of patients in the study; (ii) age; (iii) sex; (iv) classification of physical status according to the American Society of Anesthesiologists; (v) risk factors for EA; (vi) type of anesthesia; (vii) type of surgery; (viii) method of acupuncture therapy; (ix) duration and onset of acupuncture therapy; (x) number of patients with EA; (xi) absolute values of the EA score evaluated using a specific assessment tool; (xii) absolute values of the pain score evaluated using a specific assessment tool; (xiii) time taken for extubation; (xiv) PACU length of stay; and (xv) adverse effects of acupuncture therapy. Two review authors extracted the data independently, and discrepancies were resolved through discussion. Missing data were requested from the study authors. The study was excluded if the trial authors did not have the missing data.

Assessment of the risk of bias

We assessed the risk of bias using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool 2.0 [21] for RCTs, which has five domains and one overall risk of bias domain as follows: (i) bias arising from the randomization process; (ii) bias due to deviations from intended interventions; (iii) bias due to missing outcome data; (iv) bias in the measurement of outcomes; (v) bias for selection of the reported result; and (vi) overall risk of bias. The risk of bias was assessed as “low,” “of some concern,” or “high” in each domain.

Data synthesis and statistical analyses

Statistical analyses were performed using the R statistical software package, version 4.0.3 (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria). Dichotomous data were compared between the groups using the risk ratio and continuous data using the mean difference (MD). The risk ratio and MD were summarized using a 95% confidence interval (CI); statistical significance was set at a 95% CI value of 0 or 1 for continuous or dichotomous data, respectively. A random-effect model (DerSimonian and Laird method [22]) was used to combine the results. In addition, we used the Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman adjustment method [23] if the number of studies to be combined was small (i.e., < 10). Heterogeneity was quantified using the I2 statistic, which was significant if the value exceeded 50%. Subgroup analyses were conducted to explore possible causes in cases with high heterogeneity. A forest plot was used to represent the effect of treatment graphically. A small study effect was assessed using a funnel plot and Egger’s regression asymmetry test [24], which was positive if the latter test showed p < 0.1.

Subgroup analyses were conducted according to the following predefined factors when the I2 statistic exceeded 50%: (i) method of acupuncture therapy, (ii) selection of points (unilateral or bilateral), and (iii) type of surgery (high-risk vs. low-risk surgery). High-risk surgery for EA was defined as tonsillectomy or adenotonsillectomy. Sensitivity analysis, which was restricted to the studies with a low risk of bias, was performed for the primary outcome.

Trial sequential analysis

For the primary outcome, TSA was performed to correct for random error and repetitive testing of accumulating and sparse data. TSA monitoring boundaries (i.e., monitoring boundaries for meta-analysis) and required information size (RIS) were quantified, and adjusted CIs were calculated. The risk of type 1 error was maintained at 5% with a power of 90%. A reduction in the risk ratio of 25% was considered clinically significant. If the cumulative Z-curve could not cross the TSA monitoring boundaries, the quality of evidence was downgraded due to inaccuracies in the results.

Summary of evidence

The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) approach was used to evaluate the quality of evidence of the primary outcomes [25, 26]. Judgments of the quality of evidence were based on the presence or absence of the following variables: (i) limitations in study design; (ii) inconsistency; (iii) indirectness; (iv) inaccuracies in the results; and (v) publication bias. The quality of evidence for the primary outcomes was graded as “very low,” “low,” “moderate,” or “high.” Additionally, GRADEpro GDT (https://gradepro.org/) was used to summarize the findings using a table.

Results

Search selection and study characteristics

Initially, the database search identified 2,251 articles; among them, the full text of 69 articles was examined in detail. Finally, six trials were included with 489 patients; of them, 244 received acupuncture therapy (Fig 1). Five trials evaluated the incidence of EA using the PAED scale [3, 10, 12, 27], and one trial evaluated the incidence of EA using a four-point scale [11]. Martin et al. [27] divided the patients into four groups by acupuncture therapy and midazolam premedication; therefore, we analyzed the data separately as two trials: “Martin 2020 MDZ+” and “Martin 2020 MDZ-”.

Fig 1. PRISMA flow diagram.

Fig 1

The characteristics of the six trials are presented in Table 1. All trials compared acupuncture therapy with a sham procedure or standard care. Two trials used a peripheral nerve stimulation device for acupuncture therapy [3, 12], three trials used acupuncture needles [11, 27, 28], and one trial used capsicum plasters [10]. All trials stimulated HT7. Furthermore, two trials stimulated LI-4 [11] or the ear [27] and one trial stimulated P6, KI6, and the body [28]. Patient age ranged from 1 to 12 years. Five trials used sevoflurane to maintain general anesthesia, and one trial used isoflurane [28]. When data about our meta-analysis outcomes could not be extracted from the trial’s published data, we contacted the corresponding authors for clarification. However, we were unable to receive data from one trial’s authors [11] and were consequently unable to estimate the incidence of EA in that trial.

Table 1. Characteristics of the trials.

Source Study/Control Age (protocol) Type of surgery Method of acupuncture Type of control Point of acupuncture laterality Duration and the onset of acupuncture therapy Diagnosis tool for EA Diagnostic criteria for EA
Acar 2012 25/25 2–10 Elective adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy Capsicum plasters (5.5 cm2) Inactive plasters (5.5 cm2) HT7 Bilateral After the induction of anesthesia—throughout the surgery PAED score A score of ≥10 at any measurement time was accepted as
Hijikata 2016 60/60 18 m–96 m Inguinal hernia repair, adenoidectomy and/or tonsillectomy, unilateral strabismus surgery, cryptorchidism repair, tympanostomy tube insertion and other minor procedures Single-twitch stimulation at 1 Hz Electrodes alone were attached; an electrical stimulus was not applied HT7 Bilateral Throughout the operation PAED score, Aono’s score PAED ≥10
Ismail 2021 30/30 3–12 y Elective adenotonsillectomy Sterile single-use acupuncture needles penetrated the skin to a depth of 1 cm Sham acpuncture Ht7, li4, ki6, p6, ear, body Unilateral After induction of anesthesia—until the end of surgery PAED score PAED ≥10
Lin 2009 30/30 1–6 y Bilateral myringotomy and tympanostomy tube placement A stainless-steel acupuncture needle, 30 mm in length and 0.18 mm in diameter No acupuncture treatment Ht7, li-4 Bilateral Each acupuncture needle was manually manipulated for 10 s and kept in situ for a total duration of 10 min. Emergence agitation was assessed on a 4-point scale: 1 = asleep, calm; 2 = mildly agitated but easily consolable; 3 = moderately agitated or restless and inconsolable; and 4 = hysterical, crying inconsolably, or thrashing
Martin 2020 MDZ+ 25/25 1–6 y Unilateral or bilateral myringotomy tube placement only Seirin pionex press needles (1.8 mm long with an adhesive backing) No acupuncture treatment Ht7, ear shen men Bilateral After anesthesia induction and removed after completion of the myringotomy tube placement, but prior to leaving the operating room PAED score None
Martin 2020 MDZ- 24/25 1–6 y Unilateral or bilateral myringotomy tube placement only Seirin pionex press needles (length of 1.8 mm with an adhesive backing) No acupuncture treatment Ht7, ear shen men Bilateral After anesthesia induction and removed after completion of the myringotomy tube placement, but prior to leaving the operating room PAED score None
Nakamura 2018 50/50 18 m–96 m Inguinal hernia, other minor surgery Single-twitch stimulation at 1 Hz Electrodes alone were attached; an electrical stimulus was not applied Ht7 Unilateral during the surgery PAED score, Aono’s score EA: PAED ≥10

Abbreviations: EA, emergence agitation; PAED, Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium scale

Risk of bias in included trials

The risk of bias for the primary outcome in the included trials is summarized in Fig 2. We found that three trials had a low risk of bias for our primary outcome, while two had a high risk of bias. The risk of bias for secondary outcomes are summarized in S6 Fig in S1 File.

Fig 2. Risk of bias in included trials.

Fig 2

Intervention effects for EA

Five trials evaluated the incidence of EA using the PAED scale [3, 10, 12, 27, 28]. The overall incidence of EA in the acupuncture therapy group and the control group was 39.5% and 23.4%, respectively. The combined result showed no significant difference (RR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.26–1.48; I2 = 63%, Fig 3A). The absolute values of the PAED scale scores in the acupuncture therapy and control groups were 8.74 and 9.05, respectively. The combined result showed no significant difference (MD, 0.14; 95% CI, -2.28–2.56; I2 = 31%, Fig 3B). Two trials evaluated the incidence of EA using Aono’s scale [3, 12]. The absolute values of the Aono’s scale scores in the acupuncture therapy and control groups were 1.67 and 2.22, respectively, which showed no significant difference (MD, -0.48; 95% CI, -6.83–5.87; I2 = 78%, Fig 3C).

Fig 3.

Fig 3

A. Forest plot showing incidence of anesthesia emergence (EA) using Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale scores. B. Forest plot showing Pediatric Anesthesia Emergence Delirium (PAED) scale scores. C. Forest plot showing Aono’s scale scores.

Intervention effect for pain

Four trials evaluated pain using the Children’s Hospital of Eastern Ontario Pain Scale (CHEOPS) score [3, 1012]. The absolute values of the CHEOPS scores in the acupuncture therapy and control groups were 8.35 and 8.73, respectively, which showed no significant difference (MD, -0.41; 95% CI, -4.27–3.46; I2 = 66%, S1A Fig in S1 File).

Adverse events

No increase in adverse events was reported in the acupuncture group. Additionally, no significant difference was observed between the two groups regarding the time taken for extubation (MD, -0.04; 95% CI, -11.92–11.18; I2 = 12%, S1B Fig in S1 File) and PACU length of stay (MD, 1.76; 95% CI, -10.01–13.53; I2 = 81%, S1C Fig in S1 File).

Small-study effects

We could not conduct an asymmetry test for the funnel plot because only five trials were included.

Sensitivity analysis

We conducted a sensitivity analysis according to the risk of bias. No statistically significant difference was observed when only trials with a low risk of bias were included (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.21–2.08; I2 = 54%, S2 Fig in S1 File).

Subgroup analysis

We conducted a predefined subgroup analysis to explore the causes of heterogeneity, including the type of acupuncture therapy, selection of points (unilateral or bilateral), and surgery type (high-risk surgery for EA or not). The subgroup analysis for the type of surgery showed that the heterogeneity decreased in both groups, and the interaction of surgery type and acupuncture therapy was significant (interaction p < 0.01, S3 Fig in S1 File). All point estimates of the risk ratio were less than 1 in the subgroups for high-risk surgery; conversely, all point estimates of the risk ratio were greater than 1 in the subgroups for low-risk surgery. The 95% confidence intervals were wide for both subgroups (RR, 0.43; 95% CI, 0.16–1.18 in the High-risk group: RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 0.37–4.71 in the Low-risk group, S3 Fig in S1 File). In other subgroup analyses, heterogeneity remained, with no observed significant interaction (S4, S5 Figs in S1 File).

Trial sequential analysis

Trial sequential analysis for the incidence of EA showed that the estimated required information size was 2,435; however, the collated information size was lower than this at 429 (17.6%). The Z curve did not cross the TSA monitoring boundary or reach the required information size (Fig 4). This indicates that the accumulated data were insufficient to conclusively determine the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy in treating EA in surgical pediatric patients.

Fig 4. Trial sequential analysis.

Fig 4

Quality of evidence

We evaluated the quality of evidence using the GRADE system. The evidence quality for the incidence of EA was “very low” as there were limitations in study design, inconsistency, imprecision, and possible publication bias. Indirectness was not detected (Table 2).

Table 2. Summary of evidence.

Acupuncture therapy compared to placebo/sham or standard care for preventing EA
Patient or population: preventing EA
Setting: Operation room
Intervention: acupuncture therapy
Comparison: placebo/sham or standard care
Outcome № of participants (studies) Relative effect (95% CI) Anticipated absolute effects (95% CI) Certainty
Difference
Incidence of EA № of participants: 429 (5 RCTs) OR 0.62 (0.26 to 1.48) 39.5% 23.4% (11.1 to 42.1) 16.1% fewer (28.5 fewer to 2.5 more) ⨁◯◯◯ VERY LOW a,b,c,d
The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% confidence interval) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI).
Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group grades of evidence
High certainty: We are very confident that the true effect lies close to that of the estimate of the effect.
Moderate certainty: We are moderately confident in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be close to the estimate of the effect, but there is a possibility that it is substantially different.
Low certainty: Our confidence in the effect estimate is limited: The true effect may be substantially different from the estimate of the effect.
Very low certainty: We have very little confidence in the effect estimate: The true effect is likely to be substantially different from the estimate of effect.

a. Only three trials were at low risk of bias.

b. There is a high clinical heterogeneity.

c. The trial sequential analysis (TSA)-adjusted CI was wide.

d. Publication bias could not be assessed because only five trials were included.

EA: Emergence agitation; CI: Confidence interval; RR: Risk ratio; OR: Odds ratio; MD: Mean difference

Discussion

Our results showed that the current accumulated RCT data are insufficient to conclude the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy in preventing EA in children undergoing general anesthesia. The combined results showed that acupuncture therapy reduced the incidence of EA at a risk ratio of 0.62 with a wide confidence interval; additionally, the TSA indicated that further studies are needed to confirm this result. Consequently, the quality of the assessed evidence based on the GRADE approach was “very low.” Additionally, the secondary outcomes, namely the absolute mean values of EA and pain scores evaluated using specific assessment tool scales, showed no significant differences. No trial reported adverse side effects or minor transient side effects associated with acupuncture therapy.

In 2009, Lin et al. [11] reported the first RCT regarding this topic; subsequently, four more RCTs have been published. All five trials included in this meta-analysis differed in terms of the method of acupuncture therapy, acupuncture point selection, and surgery type. Therefore, the integrated results showed moderate heterogeneity, with I2 > 50%. We conducted a subgroup analysis to clarify the cause of heterogeneity, which showed that acupuncture therapy was associated with the type of surgery; particularly, it tended to prevent EA in high-risk surgeries for EA. The interaction p-value was significant, suggesting the presence of a qualitative interaction between the two effects of acupoint stimulation. However, this result has wide 95% confidence intervals and is not conclusive; therefore, it should be regarded as a hypothesis-generating result. Future studies limited to surgeries with a high risk for EA should be conducted to confirm this hypothesis.

We considered that the preventive effect of acupuncture on EA might be associated with pain reduction; therefore, we analyzed the CHEOPS score outcomes as secondary endpoints. A previous study found a strong relationship between EA and postoperative pain [29]. In our study, no significant differences were found in any of the secondary outcomes and adverse events. However, the included trials showed significant differences regarding surgery type and postoperative pain management methods; therefore, further trials are needed to evaluate the effect of acupuncture therapy on pain.

Additionally, we assessed the incidence of adverse events such as nausea and vomiting, time taken for extubation, and PACU length of stay. There was no increase in the adverse events reported in the included studies in the acupuncture therapy group, with no significant difference between groups. The National Institute of Health Consensus states that under similar conditions, acupuncture therapy causes substantially lower adverse effects compared to other drugs and other accepted procedures [13], which is consistent with our results. Our findings suggested that the side effects of acupuncture therapy are minimal; however, the results, based only on RCTs, are insufficient to evaluate rare adverse events. Although adverse events are expected to be minimal, the clinical application of acupuncture for EA prevention purposes should be withheld until efficacy is firmly confirmed in future RCTs and meta-analyses.

Our study has several limitations. First, only six trials were included in the meta-analysis. The total number of patients was considerably lower compared to the RIS, and the possibility of publication bias could not be ruled out. The results showed moderate heterogeneity (I2 > 50%), and we found that one out of four of these trials had a high risk of bias. Thus, we downgraded the quality of evidence to “very low.” Second, there is high clinical heterogeneity due to differences in acupuncture therapy, point selection, and surgery type. The integration of results from trials using different methodologies and subjects remains controversial. I2, an index of heterogeneity, was high; however, subgroup analysis suggested that some of the heterogeneity was created by the difference in the surgery type (high or low-risk surgery). This finding might generate an attractive hypothesis that the effect of acupuncture therapy may vary depending on the surgery. Third, all studies in this research chose to stimulate HT7 as the acupoint. While this may have reduced clinical heterogeneity in terms of treatment, it is important to note that our study results cannot be extrapolated to the stimulation of other acupoints.

Conclusion

In conclusion, this meta-analysis showed that the currently available RCTs are insufficient to conclusively determine the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy, especially HT7 stimulation, in preventing EA in children undergoing general anesthesia. The quality of evidence from previous RCTs was “very low.”

Supporting information

S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.

(DOCX)

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English language editing.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Vlajkovic GP, Sindjelic RP. Emergence delirium in children: many questions, few answers. Anesth Analg. 2007;104: 84–91. doi: 10.1213/01.ane.0000250914.91881.a8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Sikich N, Sc M, Lerman J, Sc BA. Development and psychometric evaluation of the pediatric anesthesia emergence delirium scale. Anesthesiology. 2004;100: 1138–1145. 00000542-200405000-00015 doi: 10.1097/00000542-200405000-00015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Hijikata T, Mihara T, Nakamura N, Miwa T, Ka K, Goto T. Electrical stimulation of the heart 7 acupuncture site for preventing emergence agitation in children: a randomised controlled trial. Eur J Anaesthesiol. 2016;33: 535–542. doi: 10.1097/EJA.0000000000000379 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Aouad MT, Yazbeck-karam VG, Nasr VG, El-khatib MF. A single dose of propofol at the end of surgery for the prevention of emergence agitation in children undergoing strabismus surgery during sevoflurane. Anesthesia. 2007;107: 733–738. doi: 10.1097/01.anes.0000287009.46896.a7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Galinkin JL, Fazi LM, Cuy RM, Chiavacci RM, Kurth CD, Shah UK, et al. Use of intranasal fentanyl in children undergoing myringotomy and tube placement during halothane and sevoflurane anesthesia. 2000;93: 1378–1383. doi: 10.1097/00000542-200012000-00006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Amorim MAS, Govêia CS, Magalhães E, Ladeira LCA, Moreira LG, de Miranda DB. Effect of dexmedetomidine in children undergoing general anesthesia with sevoflurane: a meta-analysis. Brazilian J Anesthesiol. 2017;67: 193–198. doi: 10.1016/j.bjane.2016.02.007 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Malviya S, Voepel-Lewis T, Ramamurthi RJ, Burke C, Tait AR. Clonidine for the prevention of emergence agitation in young children: efficacy and recovery profile. Paediatr Anaesth. 2006;16: 554–559. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2006.01818.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Costi D, Ellwood J, Wallace A, Ahmed S, Waring L, Cyna A. Transition to propofol after sevoflurane anesthesia to prevent emergence agitation: a randomized controlled trial. Paediatr Anaesth. 2015;25: 517–523. doi: 10.1111/pan.12617 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Kim M, Moon B, Kim H, Lee J. Comparison of propofol and fentanyl administered at the end of anaesthesia for prevention of emergence agitation after sevoflurane anaesthesia in children. Br J Anaesth. 2013;110: 274–280. doi: 10.1093/bja/aes382 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Acar HV, Yilmaz A, Demir G, Eruyar SG, Dikmen B. Capsicum plasters on acupoints decrease the incidence of emergence agitation in pediatric patients. Paediatr Anaesth. 2012;22: 1105–1109. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2012.03876.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Lin Y-C, Tassone RF, Jahng S, Rahbar R, Holzman RS, Zurakowski D, et al. Acupuncture management of pain and emergence agitation in children after bilateral myringotomy and tympanostomy tube insertion. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19: 1096–101. doi: 10.1111/j.1460-9592.2009.03129.x [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nakamura N, Mihara T, Hijikata T, Goto T, Ka K. Unilateral electrical stimulation of the heart 7 acupuncture point to prevent emergence agitation in children: a prospective, double-blinded, randomized clinical trial. PLoS One. 2018;13: e0204533. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0204533 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Jindal V, Ge A, Mansky PJ. Safety and efficacy of acupuncture in children: a review of the evidence. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol. 2008;30: 431–42. doi: 10.1097/MPH.0b013e318165b2cc [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Zhang Y, Zhang C, Yan M, Wang N, Liu J, Wu A. The effectiveness of PC6 acupuncture in the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in children: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Paediatr Anaesth. 2020;30: 552–563. doi: 10.1111/pan.13860 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Son C-G. Clinical application of single acupoint (HT7). Integr Med Res. 2019;8: 227–228. doi: 10.1016/j.imr.2019.08.005 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Khongrum J, Wattanathorn J. Laser Acupuncture at HT7 Improves the Cerebellar Disorders in Valproic Acid-Rat Model of Autism. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2017;10: 231–239. doi: 10.1016/j.jams.2017.06.006 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Lai X, Ren J, Lu Y, Cui S, Chen J, Huang Y, et al. Effects of acupuncture at HT7 on glucose metabolism in a rat model of Alzheimer’s disease: an 18F-FDG-PET study. Acupunct Med. 2016;34: 215–222. doi: 10.1136/acupmed-2015-010865 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372: n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. 2nd ed. Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Nakajima D, Mihara T, Hijikata T, Tomita M. Effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for preventing emergence agitation in children: A protocol for systematic review and meta- analysis with trial sequential analysis. 2022; 1–8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264197 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Sterne JAC, Savović J, Page MJ, Elbers RG, Blencowe NS, Boutron I, et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2019;366: l4898. doi: 10.1136/bmj.l4898 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.DerSimonian R, Laird N. Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1986;7: 177–188. doi: 10.1016/0197-2456(86)90046-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Inthout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. The Hartung-Knapp-Sidik-Jonkman method for random effects meta-analysis is straightforward and considerably outperforms the standard DerSimonian-Laird method. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014;14: 25. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-14-25 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315: 629–34. doi: 10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Atkins D, Best D, Briss PA, Eccles M, Falck-Ytter Y, Flottorp S, et al. Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2004;328: 1490. doi: 10.1136/bmj.328.7454.1490 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Kunz R, Falck-Ytter Y, Alonso-Coello P, et al. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ. 2008;336: 924–926. doi: 10.1136/bmj.39489.470347.AD [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Martin CS, Yanez ND, Treggiari MM, Piper L, Cusick J, Lalwani K. Randomized controlled trial of acupuncture to prevent emergence delirium in children undergoing myringotomy tube placement. Minerva Anestesiol. 2020;86: 141–149. doi: 10.23736/S0375-9393.19.13591-2 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Ismail SA, Atef HM, Abuelnaga ME, Midan HM. Unilateral acupuncture reduces postoperative pain scores in children undergoing adenotonsillectomy: A randomized controlled trial. J Pain Res. 2021;14: 273–283. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S285322 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Lynch EP, Lazor MA, Gellis JE, Orav J, Goldman L, Marcantonio ER. The impact of postoperative pain on the development of postoperative delirium. Anesth Analg. 1998;86: 781–785. doi: 10.1097/00000539-199804000-00019 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Huijuan Cao

20 Feb 2023

PONE-D-22-28712Effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for the prevention of emergence agitation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mihara,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Apr 06 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Huijuan Cao, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Additional Editor Comments:

Some details were not provided, e.g. the inclusion criteria of the review. The primary outcome was incidence of EA, however, the diagnostic criteria of EA was not specified. It's very important to identify how to determine EA accroding to the PACU scores. Besides, in Table 1 the type of control in each included trial should also be reported.

Purpose of this review is to assess the  the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy in preventing EA in children undergoing general anesthesia, and the current results showed no difference between groups. With limited number of included participants, results of subgroup analysis may not really suggest the conclusions in the text. I suggest that authors carefully evaluate the existing evidence and draw objective conclusions.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: I do not have any concerns about this paper and all of the criteria for publication have been met. This paper appropriately identifies the lack of evidence for and high quality studies of acupuncture for EA.

Reviewer #2: This study is an important report for improving the quality of integrative medicine in recent years. In particular, acupuncture therapy is noninvasive and is expected to play a role as an adjunctive treatment. Thus, it is necessary to accumulate scientific evidence and information, and the authors have organized the data for acupuncture therapy in preventing emergence agitation. Although the data appear to be factual, there are a few questions.

The selected papers seem to be a collection of reports that chose the acupuncture point of HT7 (Shenmen). Why is HT7 regularly used in previous studies? Please describe in Background or Discussion.

Some are written in the limits (L300), acupuncture treatment focused on HT7 is just ineffective, other acupuncture points may be effective? Can you suggest other acupoints that are more effective than HT7 from an oriental medicine side?

Shouldn't the Conclusion be "acupuncture treatment focusing on HT7" instead of "effects of acupuncture"? Please reconsider your conclusions along with the contents of the excluded papers.

This research and analysis will hopefully lead to a stronger and better culture of acupuncture.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 1

Huijuan Cao

7 May 2023

PONE-D-22-28712R1Effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for the prevention of emergence agitation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysisPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mihara,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by 24th May 2023. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Huijuan Cao, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #3: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #2: Yes

Reviewer #3: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #2: (No Response)

Reviewer #3: The points highlighted in previous review have been successfully addressed. However, I would like to raise one concern to improve the quality of this manuscript. please describe the ‘emergence agitation’ in more details in the introduction section.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #2: No

Reviewer #3: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Decision Letter 2

Huijuan Cao

24 May 2023

Effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for the prevention of emergence agitation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

PONE-D-22-28712R2

Dear Dr. Takahiro Mihara,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Huijuan Cao, Ph.D.

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Acceptance letter

Huijuan Cao

29 May 2023

PONE-D-22-28712R2

Effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for the prevention of emergence agitation in children: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

Dear Dr. Mihara:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Huijuan Cao

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Checklist. PRISMA checklist.

    (DOCX)

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_Reviewers_02.docx

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response_to_ReviewersR1_01.docx

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES