4.6 Review

Auricular stimulation for preoperative anxiety - A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled clinical trials

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ANESTHESIA
卷 76, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinane.2021.110581

关键词

Preoperative anxiety; Auricular stimulation; Transauricular vagal nerve stimulation; Systematic review

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Auricular stimulation may be beneficial for preoperative anxiety, but further research is needed to clarify its efficacy.
Study objective: Previous randomized controlled trials (RCTs) suggest that auricular stimulation (AS) is safe and effective in treatment of preoperative anxiety; however, a systematic evaluation is lacking. The aim was to summarize the evidence on efficacy and safety of AS for preoperative anxiety, as well as for other outcomes. Design: We conducted a systematic review of RCTs including patients from all available populations. The search was done through MEDLINE (PubMed), EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), ISI Web of Science and Scopus Database from inception to June 2020. Study selection and data extraction were performed in by 2 independent reviewers with ability to resolve disagreements by a third author. Meta-analyses as well as the risk of bias and evidence quality assessments were performed according to the Cochrane 6.2, 2021 handbook recommendations. Interventions: We compared AS with pharmacological and non-pharmacological interventions for different outcomes. Measurements: We assessed the repercussion of the evaluated interventions over anxiety scores and their safety, physiological parameters, perioperative medications requirement and intensity of postoperative pain. Main results: We have included 15 studies with 1603 patients. AS has presented reduced anxiety scores as compared to the sham control (Standardized Mean Difference (SMD) -0.72, 95% confidence interval (CI) -1.09 to 0.36, p < 0.0001; 8 trials; 701 patients; heterogeneity: I-2 80%; GRADE: moderate certainty) and to no intervention (SMD -1.01, 95% CI -1.58 to 0.45, p = 0.0004; 4 trials; 420 patients; heterogeneity: I-2 84%; GRADE: very low certainty). There was no difference between AS and benzodiazepines (SMD -0.03; 95% CI: 0.34 to 0.28; p = 0.84; 3 trials; 158 patients; heterogeneity: I-2 0%; GRADE: very low certainty). No trials reported serious adverse effects of AS. Conclusions: AS may be useful in treatment of preoperative anxiety. Due to heterogenous certainty in effect estimates, further research is needed to clarify the actual efficacy of AS for preoperative anxiety.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据