Summary of findings 3. Acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia versus analgesia for post‐caesarean pain.
| Acupuncture plus analgesia versus analgesia for post‐caesarean pain | ||||||
|
Patient or population: post‐caesarean pain
Settings: maternity unit
Intervention: acupuncture or acupressure plus analgesia Comparison: analgesia | ||||||
| Outcomes | Anticipated absolute effects* (95% CI) | Relative effect (95% CI) | No of Participants (studies) | Certainty of the evidence (GRADE) | Comments | |
| Risk with analgesia | Risk with Acupuncture or acupressureplus analgesia | |||||
|
Pain Follow‐up: 12 hours |
SMD 0.28 SD lower (0.64 lower to 0.07 higher) | ‐ | 130 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,2 | Acupuncture plus analgesia may reduce pain slightly compared with analgesia (SMD between 0.20 and 0.39 indicates a small effect) | |
|
Pain Follow‐up: 24 hours |
SMD 0.63 SD lower (0.99 lower to 0.26 lower) | ‐ | 130 (2 RCTs) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low1,3 | Acupuncture plus analgesia may reduce pain compared with analgesia (SMD between 0.5 and 0.79 indicates a moderate effect) | |
| Adverse effects (pruritus) Follow‐up: up to 24 hours | Study population | RR 0.50 (0.08 to 3.29) | 60 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊝⊝⊝ very low4,5 | ||
| 100 per 1,000 | 50 per 1,000 (8 to 329) | |||||
| Vital signs | Not reported | |||||
| Rescue analgesic requirement (cumulative dose) assessed with: mg | The mean rescue analgesic requirement (cumulative dose) in the control group was 15.28 mg | MD was 5 mg lower (7.67 lower to 2.34 lower) | ‐ | 60 (1 RCT) | ⊕⊕⊝⊝ low3,4 | |
| Pain at six weeks after discharge | Not reported | |||||
| *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). CI: confidence interval; MD: mean difference; RCT: randomised controlled trial; RR: risk ratio; SD: standard deviation; SMD: standardised mean difference. | ||||||
|
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. | ||||||
1 Downgraded one level due to high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection and detection bias
2 Downgraded one level due to imprecision: 95% CI spans possible benefit and possible harm
3 Downgraded one level for imprecision: few participants
4 Downgraded one level due to high risk of performance bias and unclear risk of selection bias
5 Downgraded one level due to imprecision: few participants and 95% CI spans possible benefit and possible harm