Nausea

Nor Azila Mohd Nafiah et al. (2022) · International journal of environmental research and public health

This randomized controlled trial with 90 hospitalized pregnant women tested whether pressing on a specific wrist point (P6, also known as Nei Guan) could relieve hyperemesis gravidarum -- a severe, dangerous form of pregnancy sickness marked by relentless nausea and vomiting, weight loss, and dehydration, distinct from ordinary "morning sickness." P6 sits about two finger-widths above the inner wrist crease and has long been used in Traditional Chinese Medicine to settle the stomach; commercial acupressure wristbands apply steady pressure to this same point. The trial compared wristband acupressure directly against standard intravenous anti-nausea medication, rather than against a placebo. Ninety women under 16 weeks pregnant with moderate-to-severe nausea and vomiting were admitted to a Malaysian hospital and randomly assigned, 1:1, to either wear acupressure wristbands on both wrists three times a day for at least 10 minutes before meals, or receive standard intravenous anti-nausea medicine (metoclopramide) every 8 hours. Both groups received the same IV fluids. Researchers tracked nausea and vomiting severity with a validated symptom score at 8, 16, and 24 hours, and separately tracked how quickly ketones (a dehydration marker) cleared from the urine. Every enrolled woman completed the trial. The acupressure group had significantly milder nausea and vomiting than the medication-only group at every checkpoint (8, 16, and 24 hours; p=0.001-0.006) -- by 24 hours, 93% of the acupressure group had only mild symptoms left, compared to 60% on medication alone. Acupressure also cleared the dehydration marker (urine ketones) faster on average (about 22 hours versus 28 hours, p=0.02) and cut the need for rescue anti-nausea injections sharply: over a quarter of the acupressure group needed no extra medication at all, while the medication-only group received three scheduled doses regardless. No side effects were reported in either group. These results position P6 acupressure as a genuinely useful, risk-free option for easing severe pregnancy nausea and reducing how much anti-nausea medication a hospitalized patient needs. The key caveat: there was no realistic way to "fake" acupressure for comparison, so some of the benefit could reflect expectation rather than the specific pressure point itself -- and the trial was conducted at a single hospital. Still, hyperemesis gravidarum has very few rigorously tested nondrug treatments, making this a meaningful addition to the evidence.

Jing-Yu Tan et al. (2022) · BMC complementary medicine and therapies

This preliminary randomized controlled trial with 114 breast cancer patients starting their first round of chemotherapy explored whether auricular acupressure -- pressing small seeds against specific points on the outer ear -- could ease chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV), a side effect that standard anti-nausea drugs do not fully control. The study is grounded in the idea, borrowed from Traditional Chinese Medicine, that stimulating certain ear points can influence nausea pathways elsewhere in the body. To find out how much of any benefit was real versus expectation, researchers compared a "true" acupressure group against a look-alike "sham" version and against standard care alone. Women scheduled for chemotherapy known to cause significant nausea were split into three groups of 38: true acupressure (firm seeds pressed on seven ear points three times a day for five days), sham acupressure (soft, non-stimulating seeds at the same points and schedule), and standard antiemetic care alone. Everyone received standard anti-nausea medication regardless of group. Nausea and vomiting were tracked using the MASCC Antiemesis Tool, a validated eight-item scale, on the second and sixth days of the chemotherapy cycle, and quality of life was measured separately. Both acupressure groups did better than standard care alone for CINV occurring in the first 24 hours (acute CINV). More than half of the true acupressure group (52.6%) had no nausea or vomiting at all in that window, compared to under a quarter (23.7%) on standard care alone (a meaningful and statistically significant difference, p=0.01). Total symptom scores were also meaningfully lower with true acupressure across several measures (p-values from 0.001 to 0.004, with effect sizes edging toward "large"). The catch: the sham acupressure group did almost as well as the true group on nearly every measure, meaning much of the benefit looks like a placebo effect rather than something unique to real acupressure -- though the researchers note that a placebo effect big enough to meaningfully reduce nausea is still clinically useful. Neither approach measurably helped with nausea that showed up later (days 2-5) or with quality of life. Practically, this suggests auricular acupressure is a safe, low-cost option worth adding alongside standard anti-nausea medication for the first day of chemotherapy, with only mild, temporary ear discomfort reported by about 1 in 7 participants. The main limitation is that the study was small and not designed to definitively prove acupressure's own mechanism works beyond expectation -- a larger, more rigorously powered trial is needed to confirm whether the benefit holds up and how much is truly attributable to acupressure itself versus the ritual of treatment.

Bernie Garrett et al. (2021) · Nursing open

This 2021 rapid evidence assessment examined ten years of research on Therapeutic Touch (TT), one of the most widely practiced energy healing methods in nursing. TT practitioners hold their hands near — but not on — a patient's body, aiming to sense and rebalance the human biofield (a proposed energy field surrounding the body, related to concepts like qi and prana in traditional systems). Developed in 1972 within nursing, TT is still taught in nursing schools today, so two researchers set out to answer a direct question: how well does the recent evidence actually hold up? The reviewers screened seven research databases for every clinical TT study published between January 2009 and March 2020, following PRISMA systematic-review guidelines. From 3,290 records they identified 21 qualifying studies — 15 randomized controlled trials among them — covering 1,302 patients from premature infants to adults in their 90s, in settings from cancer care to post-surgical recovery. Each study was scored for evidence quality and risk of bias using standard appraisal tools. On the surface the results look remarkable: 18 of 21 studies reported benefits — less pain, less anxiety, better sleep, reduced nausea. But quality told a different story. Over 70% of the studies scored the minimum possible evidence rating, and only 4 of 21 had a low risk of bias — and those four stronger studies all found no difference between TT and control treatments (meaning the positive results came almost entirely from the weakest research). No study reported any adverse effects, so safety was not a concern. The review's picture of TT: it appears safe and many participants find it relaxing, but there is currently no high-quality evidence it works better than placebo or other relaxation approaches, and sessions can cost around $120/hour. The reviewers recommend that research first validate whether the biofield can be reliably detected and measured — foundational work that biofield science is actively pursuing — before more clinical trials are run.