Table 2 Electroacupuncture in treating visceral pain in GI disorders

(Zheng et al. 2016)

LI11 and ST37 or ST25 and BL25 or LI11, ST37, ST25 and BL25.

15 Hz continuous wave for 30 min total of 16 sessions over 4 weeks

He-EA (n = 113)

Shu-Mu-EA (n = 111)

He-Shu-Mu-EA (n = 112)

Loperamide (n = 112)

IBS-D

RCT

All groups had significantly reduced stool frequency from baseline. However, no differences were observed among the groups.

No

(Xu et al. 2022b)

ST25 and BL25

LI-EA: 2/50 Hz, 0.1–0.8 mA

HI-EA: 2/50 Hz, 1.0–1.8 mA

LI-EA (n = 25)

HI-EA (n = 26)

Loperamide (n = 22)

Functional Diarrhea

RCT

EA, especially LI-EA, significantly improved the proportion of normal defecation. EA also improved stool consistency and weekly spontaneous bowel movements. LI-EA also effectively improved QOL, anxiety, and depression, suggesting that LI-EA may have better outcomes when compared with the loperamide group.

No

(Ma et al. 2012)

Group-A:

ST34, 36, 40, 42

Group-B:

ST32, 33, 35, 38

Group-C:

BL21, CV12

Group-D:

GB34, 36, 37, 40

Group-E:

Non-acupoints

Group-F: Itopride

2/100 Hz, 0.5–1.5 mA, 5 consecutive days in a week for 4 weeks, and each session lasted for 30 min.

Group-A (n = 118)

Group-B (n = 120)

Group-C (n = 116)

Group-D (n = 119)

Group-E (n = 120)

Group-F (n = 119)

FD

RCT

All groups had improved SID scores, including epigastric pain, from baseline; however, AP groups (A, B, C, and D) and group-F were superior to the Sham-AP group (all P < 0.05 vs. Sham-AP). Group-A had significant differences in SID scores (2.43 ± 1.88 vs. 1.76 ± 2.24, P = 0.005) and QOL scores (14.8 ± 11.8 vs 8.23 ± 11.6, P < 0.001) when compared with group-F.

Yes

(Zheng et al. 2018b)

ST36, PC6, TR3, ST2, SP4, ST36, and SP9

2/100 Hz, 0.1–1.0 mA for 30 min, 5 days a week for 4 weeks

EA (n = 100)

Sham-EA (n = 100)

FD

RCT

Both groups had reduced LDQ scores, including epigastric pain, from the baseline (EA: 7.65 ± 3.8 to 2.62 ± 2.60; Sham-EA: 6.86 ± 3.00 to 5.06 ± 3.13). However, the EA group was superior to Sham-EA (mean difference, –2.2, P < 0.001). Furthermore, the effect lasted for at least 20 weeks in the EA group

Yes

(Wu et al. 2017)

LI11 and ST37

Five times a week for 2 weeks, then 3 times per week for another 2 weeks

LI-EA: 2/50 Hz, low intensity

HI-EA: 2/50 Hz with high intensity.

LI-EA (n = 62)

HI-EA (n = 68)

Mosapride (n = 71)

Functional constipation

RCT

All treatments improved SBM scores and reduced straining severity. HI-EA also improved the QOL better than mosapride.

No

(Zheng et al. 2018a)

LI11 and ST37 or ST25 and BL25 or LI11, ST37, ST25 and BL25

15 Hz continuous wave, 5 times a week for 2 weeks, then 3 times per week for another 2 weeks

He-EA (n = 172)

Shu-Mu-EA (n = 168)

He-Shu-Mu-EA (n = 165)

Mosapride (n = 170)

Functional constipation

RCT

The spontaneous bowel movement increased in all groups without any significant difference among groups, suggesting that EA is as effective as mosapride.

No

(Liu et al. 2020b)

ST36, PC6, LR3, ST44, SP4, and SP9

2 Hz/100 Hz, 0.1–1.0 mA based on the patient’s tolerance, and the patient was stimulated for 30 min.

EA (n = 33)

Sham-EA (n = 35)

FD

RCT

EA treatment significantly reduced upper abdominal pain (0.82 ± 1.01 vs 1.43 ± 1.07, P < 0.05), postprandial satiety (1.15 ± 1.09 vs 1.97 ± 0.95, P < 0.01), and upper abdominal burning sensation (0.18 ± 0.47 vs 0.77 ± 1.09, P < 0.01) compared to the control group.

Yes