Evidence Hub

The Role of Battlefield Acupuncture in Emergency Department Settings: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Yang J, Zhou X, Lim KH, Barnett HJ, Weinman AF, Woods JT, Mohabbat AB, Wahner-Roedler DL et al.

Journal of integrative and complementary medicine, 2026

758 participants

Abstract

Objective: Battlefield acupuncture (BFA) has gained widespread clinical use for patients presenting to emergency departments (EDs). This systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) aims to assess the efficacy and safety of BFA in ED settings.

Methods: A literature search was conducted in OVID and Scopus databases for RCTs involving BFA applied in ED settings. The risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Collaboration risk of bias tool, while the methodological quality of RCTs was assessed using the Jadad score. Due to the heterogeneity of the included studies, a qualitative analysis was performed.

Results: Seven studies involving 758 patients met the eligibility criteria. Among these, five studies evaluated traditional BFA in conjunction with standard analgesia care, while two studies assessed modified BFA alongside standard care. Most of the included studies were found to have a high risk of bias, leading to an overall classification of low quality according to the Jadad criteria. A descriptive analysis was performed due to heterogeneity in the interventions, observational timepoints, and outcomes reported in the included studies. Positive results were demonstrated in 71% of the studies. The most common conditions documented as the primary ED presentation included back pain, acute abdominal pain, lower extremity pain, neck pain, and acute sore throat. Notably, no severe adverse events were reported.

Conclusion: BFA may offer a safe adjunct to standard care…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review, done in people. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid. Reported size: 758 participants or records.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free