Skip to main content

Comparative Efficacy of Body Acupuncture, Electroacupuncture, and Auricular Acupuncture in Stroke Rehabilitation: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Journal
American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation (Q1)
Published
18 August 2026
Study design
Systematic review / meta-analysis of RCTs
Evidence level
Level 1, High (CEBM 1a)
Authors
Xueqi Qian, Jun Rong, Cunxin Wang, Heng Mou
PMID
42608732
DOI
10.1097/PHM.0000000000003129

Why clinicians should know about it

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of body acupuncture, electroacupuncture, and auricular acupuncture on motor, functional, and neurological recovery after stroke. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eligible studies enrolled adult stroke survivors receiving one of three acupuncture modalities versus control treatments. Primary outcome was motor function (Fugl-Meyer Assessment). Secondary outcomes included activities of daily living, neurological function, and safety. Pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were conducted. RESULTS: A total of 21 trials were included. Acupuncture significantly improved motor function compared with controls (SMD=6.48; 95% CI=4.72-8.24; P<0.001). Electroacupuncture showed the greatest benefit (SMD=7.92; 95% CI=5.60-10.24), followed by body acupuncture (SMD=5.41; 95% CI=3.25-7.57) and auricular acupuncture (SMD=3.28; 95% CI=1.12-5.44). Significant improvements were also observed in activities of daily living and neurological impairment. Network meta-analysis indicated that electroacupuncture had the highest probability of being among the most effective modalities (SUCRA=96.4%). CONCLUSION: Electroacupuncture demonstrated the most favorable overall therapeutic profile among the three acupuncture modalities, followed by body acupuncture and auricular acupuncture. These findings support modality-specific acupuncture selection for stroke rehabilitation while highlighting the need for additional head-to-head randomized trials.

Abstract as published, via PubMed.

View on PubMedFull text at the publisherOpen in the app

For healthcare professionals. The summary is generated by AI from the published abstract, and the evidence level is assigned automatically from the study design on the Oxford CEBM hierarchy. Neither is medical advice. Read the full paper before changing practice.