Summary of findings 2. Acupressure with thumb, device or sea band compared to sham acupressure with or without sedation for gagging in patients undergoing dental treatment.
| Acupressure with thumb, device or sea band compared to sham acupressure with or without sedation for gagging in patients undergoing dental treatment | ||||||
| Patient or population: patients undergoing dental treatment Setting: university hospital Intervention: acupressure at P6 point with thumb, device or sea band with or without sedation Comparison: sham acupressure with or without sedation | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | Number of participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with sham acupressure | Risk with acupressure | |||||
| Presence or absence of gagging | None of the trials comparing acupressure with thumb, device or sea band to sham acupressure with or without sedation reported this outcome | |||||
| Adverse effects | None of the trials comparing acupressure with thumb, device or sea band to sham acupressure with or without sedation reported adverse effects | |||||
| Acupressure with thumb | ||||||
| Completion of dental procedure | Study population | RR 0.85 (0.50 to 1.46) |
30 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 692 per 1000 | 588 per 1000 (346 to 1000) |
|||||
| Reduction in gagging (patient‐reported) |
Study population | RR 0.92 (0.60 to 1.41) |
30 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 769 per 1000 | 708 per 1000 (462 to 1000) |
|||||
| Acupressure with device | ||||||
| Completion of dental procedure | Study population | RR 2.63 (1.33 to 5.18) | 34 (1 RCT)a | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 333 per 1000 | 877 per 1000 (443 to 1000) | |||||
| Reduction in gagging (patient‐reported) |
Study population | RR 3.94 (1.63 to 9.53) | 34 (1 RCT)a | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 222 per 1000 | 876 per 1000 (362 to 1000) | |||||
| Acupressure with sea band | ||||||
| Completion of dental procedure | Study population | RR 1.80 (0.63 to 5.16) | 19 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 333 per 1000 | 600 per 1000 (210 to 1000) |
|||||
| Reduction in gagging (patient‐reported) |
Study population | RR 2.70 (0.72 to 10.14) | 19 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 222 per 1000 | 600 per 1000 (160 to 1000) |
|||||
| Acupressure with thumb with sedation | ||||||
| Completion of dental procedure | Study population | RR 0.96 (0.84 to 1.10) | 39 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 1000 per 1000 | 960 per 1000 (840 to 1000) |
|||||
| Reduction in gagging (patient‐reported) |
Study population | RR 1.06 (0.92 to 1.23) | 39 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 944 per 1000 | 1000 per 1000 (869 to 1000) |
|||||
| Acupressure with device with sedation | ||||||
| Completion of dental procedure | Study population | RR 1.16 (0.90 to 1.48) | 27 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 857 per 1000 | 994 per 1000 (771 to 1000) |
|||||
| Reduction in gagging (patient‐reported) |
Study population | RR 1.26 (0.93 to 1.69) | 27 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 786 per 1000 | 990 per 1000 (731 to 1000) |
|||||
| Acupressure with sea band with sedation | ||||||
| Completion of dental procedure | Study population | RR 0.88 (0.67 to 1.17) | 21 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 1000 per 1000 | 880 per 1000 (670 to 1000) |
|||||
| Reduction in gagging (patient‐reported) |
Study population | RR 0.88 (0.67 to 1.17) | 21 (1 RCT)a |
⊕⊝⊝⊝ VERY LOWb,c,d | ||
| 1000 per 1000 | 880 per 1000 (670 to 1000) |
|||||
| *The risk in the intervention group (and its 95% CI) is based on the assumed risk in the comparison group and the relative effect of the intervention (and its 95% CI) CI: confidence interval; P6: point located 3‐finger breadths below the wrist on the inner forearm in between the 2 tendons; RR: risk ratio; RCT: randomised controlled trial | ||||||
| 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 | ||||||
aLu 2000. bDowngraded 1 level for unclear risk of bias. cDowngraded 1 level for indirectness: single trial done only in adults. dDowngraded 1 level, imprecision apparent from width of confidence interval (due to small sample size).