Department of Family Medicine, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA.
J Altern Complement Med. 2010 Oct;16(10):1097-108. doi: 10.1089/acm.2009.0451.
Side-effects of standard pain medications can limit their use. Therefore, nonpharmacologic pain relief techniques such as auriculotherapy may play an important role in pain management. Our aim was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis of studies evaluating auriculotherapy for pain management.
MEDLINE,(®) ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, AMED, and Cochrane Library were searched through December 2008. Randomized trials comparing auriculotherapy to sham, placebo, or standard-of-care control were included that measured outcomes of pain or medication use and were published in English. Two (2) reviewers independently assessed trial eligibility, quality, and abstracted data to a standardized form. Standardized mean differences (SMD) were calculated for studies using a pain score or analgesic requirement as a primary outcome.
Seventeen (17) studies met inclusion criteria (8 perioperative, 4 acute, and 5 chronic pain). Auriculotherapy was superior to controls for studies evaluating pain intensity (SMD, 1.56 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85, 2.26]; 8 studies). For perioperative pain, auriculotherapy reduced analgesic use (SMD, 0.54 [95% CI: 0.30, 0.77]; 5 studies). For acute pain and chronic pain, auriculotherapy reduced pain intensity (SMD for acute pain, 1.35 [95% CI: 0.08, 2.64], 2 studies; SMD for chronic pain, 1.84 [95% CI: 0.60, 3.07], 5 studies). Removal of poor quality studies did not alter the conclusions. Significant heterogeneity existed among studies of acute and chronic pain, but not perioperative pain.
Auriculotherapy may be effective for the treatment of a variety of types of pain, especially postoperative pain. However, a more accurate estimate of the effect will require further large, well-designed trials.
标准止痛药物的副作用可能会限制其使用。因此,非药物止痛技术,如耳针疗法,可能在疼痛管理中发挥重要作用。我们的目的是对评估耳针疗法用于疼痛管理的研究进行系统评价和荟萃分析。
检索了 MEDLINE(®)、ISI Web of Science、CINAHL、AMED 和 Cochrane Library,检索时间截至 2008 年 12 月。纳入了比较耳针疗法与假耳针、安慰剂或标准护理对照,并测量疼痛或药物使用结果的随机试验,且试验以英文发表。两位(2)审阅者独立评估了试验的纳入标准、质量和数据摘要,以形成标准化表格。使用疼痛评分或镇痛需求作为主要结局的研究采用标准化均数差(SMD)进行计算。
17 项研究符合纳入标准(8 项为围手术期疼痛,4 项为急性疼痛,5 项为慢性疼痛)。与对照组相比,耳针疗法在评估疼痛强度的研究中具有优势(SMD,1.56 [95%置信区间(CI):0.85,2.26];8 项研究)。对于围手术期疼痛,耳针疗法减少了镇痛药物的使用(SMD,0.54 [95% CI:0.30,0.77];5 项研究)。对于急性疼痛和慢性疼痛,耳针疗法减轻了疼痛强度(急性疼痛的 SMD,1.35 [95% CI:0.08,2.64],2 项研究;慢性疼痛的 SMD,1.84 [95% CI:0.60,3.07],5 项研究)。排除质量较差的研究并未改变结论。急性和慢性疼痛研究之间存在显著的异质性,但围手术期疼痛研究则没有。
耳针疗法可能对治疗多种类型的疼痛有效,特别是术后疼痛。然而,需要进一步进行大型、设计良好的试验以更准确地评估其效果。