This meta-analysis pooled randomised controlled trials of electroacupuncture, given alone or with conventional therapy, in patients with peripheral facial palsy. The total sample was 888 patients. Comparators were described only as a control regimen, and follow-up duration was not reported.
Electroacupuncture-containing regimens were associated with higher cure rates (RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.67) and higher total effective rates (RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.36) than control. Facial-function scale scores also improved (SMD 1.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.30). Absolute event numbers were not reported for any outcome.
For adverse events, the pooled odds ratio was 0.36 (95% CI 0.11 to 1.22). Serious adverse events, discontinuations, and tolerability were not reported.
The authors report substantial heterogeneity, low-certainty evidence for all outcomes, variable comparators, and limited follow-up, and state that these factors preclude firm conclusions. Funding and conflicts of interest were not reported. The findings are best read as hypothesis-generating regarding short-term clinical response rather than as a basis for changing practice.
How this fits prior evidence
Prior coverage noted that corticosteroids remain first-line for peripheral facial palsy, with antiviral agents offering only incremental benefit in severe cases (NNT = 15). This meta-analysis addresses a different question, whether electroacupuncture-containing regimens improve short-term clinical response, and reports higher cure and total effective rates plus improved facial-function scores. It does not compare electroacupuncture against corticosteroids or antivirals, so it extends rather than confirms the existing treatment hierarchy. The low certainty of evidence and substantial heterogeneity limit any inference about where electroacupuncture should sit relative to established first-line therapy.
A review of several trials looked at how electroacupuncture affects people with peripheral facial palsy. Researchers compared patients receiving electroacupuncture, either on its own or combined with standard treatments, against those receiving a control regimen. The study included a total of 888 patients across different settings.
The results showed that patients receiving electroacupuncture had higher cure rates and better overall effectiveness compared to the control group. Additionally, patients using electroacupuncture showed improved scores on scales measuring facial function. These findings suggest that adding electroacupuncture to a treatment plan might help improve short-term clinical responses.
It is important to note that the evidence for these results is of low certainty. The study noted several limitations, including differences in how various trials were conducted and a lack of long-term follow-up data. Because the evidence is not yet firm, these findings should be viewed as a starting point for further research rather than a definitive clinical rule.
What this means for you:
Electroacupuncture may improve recovery for facial palsy, but the current evidence is of low certainty.
Common questions
Can electroacupuncture help with facial palsy?
The study found that electroacupuncture, whether used alone or with other treatments, showed higher cure rates and better total effective rates for patients with peripheral facial palsy. It also showed improvements in facial function scales. However, the evidence for these results is currently considered to be of low certainty.
Is electroacupuncture safe for facial palsy patients?
The study reported that the risk of adverse events was lower in the group receiving electroacupuncture compared to the control group. However, the researchers noted that the evidence is of low certainty, and more consistent data is needed to confirm long-term safety and outcomes.
How does electroacupuncture compare to standard treatment?
When electroacupuncture was combined with conventional therapy, it showed a positive trend in cure rates and facial function. Because the study involved many different types of comparison groups, it is difficult to say exactly how it compares to every specific standard treatment.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture (EA), alone or combined with conventional therapy, for peripheral facial palsy.
DESIGN: Systematic review and pairwise meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.
DATA SOURCES: PubMed, Embase.com, Web of Science Core Collection, the Cochrane Library, CNKI, Wanfang Data, VIP and SinoMed/CBM were searched from inception to 15 July 2026.
ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Chinese-language or English-language randomised trials enrolling patients with peripheral facial palsy and comparing an EA-containing regimen with a control regimen were eligible when at least one prespecified clinical outcome was reported.
DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two reviewers independently screened studies, extracted data and assessed risk of bias using Cochrane RoB 1.0. Random-effects risk ratios (RRs) were used for cure and total effective rates, standardised mean differences (SMDs) for facial-function scales and a Mantel-Haenszel OR for adverse events. Control-comparator and end-of-treatment timing subgroups were explored, and certainty was assessed with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
RESULTS: 10 trials involving 888 participants were included. Outcomes were assessed at the end of treatment: three trials within 3 weeks, three at about 1 month and four at unclear or course-based endpoints. EA-containing regimens may improve cure and total effective rates (cure: RR 1.37, 95% CI 1.13 to 1.67; I²=57.0%; total effective rate: RR 1.21, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.36; I²=81.6%). Three independent trials reported facial function (SMD 1.91, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.30; I²=94.4%). Two trials reported adverse events (OR 0.36, 95% CI 0.11 to 1.22; I²=0%). Comparator subgroup differences were exploratory because two comparator categories contained only one study each. Certainty was low for all outcomes.
CONCLUSIONS: EA-containing regimens may improve short-term clinical response, but substantial heterogeneity, low-certainty evidence, variable comparators and limited follow-up preclude firm conclusions.
