Global Trends and Perspectives of Auriculotherapy on Pain Relief: A Bibliometric and Structured Literature Review
- 1The Third School of Clinical Medicine Zhejiang Chinese Medical University Hangzhou Zhejiang China zcmu.edu.cn
- 2Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion The Third Affiliated Hospital of Zhejiang Chinese Medical University Hangzhou Zhejiang China zjztyy.com
Abstract
Background: Auriculotherapy has gained attention for pain relief due to its safety and cost‐effectiveness, but systematic visualization and trend analysis of relevant research remain insufficient.
Objectives: To map global research trends in auriculotherapy for pain and to examine whether the expansion toward clinical and evidence‐based research has translated into a sufficiently robust randomized evidence base.
Methods: We searched the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and Scopus for English‐language articles and reviews published from 2008 to December 6, 2025. Bibliometric analyses were conducted using R/bibliometrix, CiteSpace, VOSviewer, SCImago Graphica, and Microsoft Excel. A nested structured review was then performed on randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports identified within the bibliometric corpus. Clinical heterogeneity was mapped by intervention and pain category, and methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Because intervention protocols, comparators, outcomes, and assessment time points were highly heterogeneous, findings were synthesized using structured comparison rather than quantitative pooling.
Results: A total of 525 publications were included. Research output increased markedly over time, and keyword analyses indicated a shift from mechanistic and stimulation‐focused research toward randomized trials, systematic reviews, and evidence‐based medicine. The nested review included 90 RCT reports across eight pain categories, including 37 reports of auricular acupressure, 23 of auricular acupuncture, 28 of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS), and 2 of laser/cryopuncture approaches. The direction and consistency of reported analgesic findings varied by pain condition and intervention. Overall, 75.6% (68/90) of RCT reports were judged to be at high risk of bias, and substantial heterogeneity was observed in intervention parameters, comparators, outcome measures, follow‐up time points, and practitioner backgrounds.
Conclusion: Bibliometric growth and increasing emphasis on RCTs have not yet translated into equally robust clinical evidence. Current findings support further investigation of auriculotherapy, particularly through intervention‐ and pain‐specific approaches, but do not justify broad efficacy claims across pain conditions. Future studies should prioritize rigorous trial design, prospective registration, credible control procedures, standardized intervention reporting, harmonized outcomes, and clinically meaningful stratification.
Related
- Efficacy of auriculotherapy in reducing pain: a comprehensive literature review
- Global research trends on preoperative anxiety: A bibliometric analysis of the literature (2014-2024).
- Functional Brain Imaging in Knee Osteoarthritis: A Bibliometric Analysis of Research Trends and Emerging Clinical Perspectives
- Global trends and hotspots of Charcot–Marie–Tooth disease : A bibliometric analysis
- Mapping and visualizing global research trends in gut microbiota and autism spectrum disorder : A bibliometric analysis (2015–2024)
BibTeX
@article{fu2026global,
title = {{Global Trends and Perspectives of Auriculotherapy on Pain Relief: A Bibliometric and Structured Literature Review}},
author = {Luyao Fu and Yuanyuan Feng and Tianqi Huang and Yi Huang and Zhuoyi Li and Lingqian Chen and Shiyun Sun and Ruijie Ma and Kelin He},
journal = {Pain Research \& Management},
year = {2026},
month = oct,
doi = {10.1155/prm/9950178},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/9950178},
note = {CC BY 4.0},
}
RIS
TY - JOUR
TI - Global Trends and Perspectives of Auriculotherapy on Pain Relief: A Bibliometric and Structured Literature Review
AU - Luyao Fu
AU - Yuanyuan Feng
AU - Tianqi Huang
AU - Yi Huang
AU - Zhuoyi Li
AU - Lingqian Chen
AU - Shiyun Sun
AU - Ruijie Ma
AU - Kelin He
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/10/28
JO - Pain Research & Management
DO - 10.1155/prm/9950178
UR - https://doi.org/10.1155/prm/9950178
AB - Background: Auriculotherapy has gained attention for pain relief due to its safety and cost‐effectiveness, but systematic visualization and trend analysis of relevant research remain insufficient. Objectives: To map global research trends in auriculotherapy for pain and to examine whether the expansion toward clinical and evidence‐based research has translated into a sufficiently robust randomized evidence base. Methods: We searched the Web of Science Core Collection (WoSCC) and Scopus for English‐language articles and reviews published from 2008 to December 6, 2025. Bibliometric analyses were conducted using R/bibliometrix, CiteSpace, VOSviewer, SCImago Graphica, and Microsoft Excel. A nested structured review was then performed on randomized controlled trial (RCT) reports identified within the bibliometric corpus. Clinical heterogeneity was mapped by intervention and pain category, and methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Because intervention protocols, comparators, outcomes, and assessment time points were highly heterogeneous, findings were synthesized using structured comparison rather than quantitative pooling. Results: A total of 525 publications were included. Research output increased markedly over time, and keyword analyses indicated a shift from mechanistic and stimulation‐focused research toward randomized trials, systematic reviews, and evidence‐based medicine. The nested review included 90 RCT reports across eight pain categories, including 37 reports of auricular acupressure, 23 of auricular acupuncture, 28 of transcutaneous auricular vagus nerve stimulation (taVNS), and 2 of laser/cryopuncture approaches. The direction and consistency of reported analgesic findings varied by pain condition and intervention. Overall, 75.6% (68/90) of RCT reports were judged to be at high risk of bias, and substantial heterogeneity was observed in intervention parameters, comparators, outcome measures, follow‐up time points, and practitioner backgrounds. Conclusion: Bibliometric growth and increasing emphasis on RCTs have not yet translated into equally robust clinical evidence. Current findings support further investigation of auriculotherapy, particularly through intervention‐ and pain‐specific approaches, but do not justify broad efficacy claims across pain conditions. Future studies should prioritize rigorous trial design, prospective registration, credible control procedures, standardized intervention reporting, harmonized outcomes, and clinically meaningful stratification.
SN - 1203-6765
SN - 1918-1523
ER -