Medical Research Division, Korea Institute of Oriental Medicine, Daejeon 305-811, South Korea.
Acupunct Med. 2012 Dec;30(4):286-90. doi: 10.1136/acupmed-2012-010182. Epub 2012 Aug 7.
A systematic review of randomised controlled trials was conducted to evaluate the efficacy and effectiveness of intramuscular stimulation (IMS).
Electronic databases including Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Allied and Complementary Medicine Database, the Cochrane Library, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, KoreaMED, Korean Studies Information Service System, RISS and DBPIA were searched through June, 2012. The Cochrane criteria were used to assess the risk of bias for the individual studies.
A total of 416 publications were initially collected and four studies were included in this review. One study evaluated the efficacy of IMS for chronic tension-type headaches; IMS showed a better effect than the sham (headache index: mean difference (MD) -4.90, 95% CI -9.53 to -0.27). Three studies tested the effectiveness of IMS for various conditions. In the first study no significant difference was observed in a comparison of IMS and meloxicam therapy for chronic shoulder pain (pain-visual analogue scale (VAS): MD -0.05, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.16). The second study in patients with myofascial pain syndrome of the upper trapezius muscle found that IMS had a greater effect than simple dry needling measured by the pain-VAS (MD -2.70, 95% CI -3.77 to -1.63). In the third study, patients with lower back pain who received IMS plus the standard treatment had a better status at discharge than those receiving the standard treatment alone (relative risk 1.63, 95% CI 1.18 to 2.24).
Despite the positive results of these individual studies, the level of evidence supporting the efficacy and effectiveness of IMS for several conditions remains insufficient because of concerns about a lack of precision and a high risk of bias of the included studies. Rigorous large-scale clinical trials of IMS are needed to evaluate the clinical utility of this technique.
系统评价了随机对照试验,以评估肌肉内刺激(IMS)的疗效和有效性。
电子数据库包括 Medline、EMBASE、PsycINFO、护理学及相关健康文献累积索引、联合补充医学数据库、Cochrane 图书馆、中国知识基础设施、韩国 MED、韩国研究信息服务系统、RISS 和 DBPIA,检索截至 2012 年 6 月。采用 Cochrane 标准评估各研究的偏倚风险。
共收集到 416 篇文献,4 篇研究纳入本综述。一项研究评估了 IMS 治疗慢性紧张型头痛的疗效;IMS 比假刺激(头痛指数:MD-4.90,95%CI-9.53 至-0.27)效果更好。三项研究测试了 IMS 治疗各种疾病的有效性。第一项研究中,IMS 与美洛昔康治疗慢性肩痛的疗效比较无显著差异(疼痛-视觉模拟量表(VAS):MD-0.05,95%CI-0.25 至 0.16)。第二项研究中,上斜方肌肌筋膜疼痛综合征患者接受 IMS 治疗的效果优于单纯干针治疗(VAS 疼痛评分 MD-2.70,95%CI-3.77 至-1.63)。第三项研究中,接受 IMS 加标准治疗的腰痛患者出院时状况优于单独接受标准治疗的患者(相对风险 1.63,95%CI 1.18 至 2.24)。
尽管这些单独研究的结果为阳性,但由于对缺乏精确性和纳入研究的高偏倚风险的担忧,支持 IMS 治疗几种疾病的疗效和有效性的证据水平仍然不足。需要严格的大规模临床试验来评估该技术的临床实用性。