White Adrian R, Rampes Hagen, Liu Jian Ping, Stead Lindsay F, Campbell John
Primary Care, Plymouth University Peninsula Schools of Medicine and Dentistry, 25 Room N32, ITTC Building, Tamar Science Park, Plymouth, UK, PL6 8BX.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Jan 23;2014(1):CD000009. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000009.pub4.
Acupuncture and related techniques are promoted as a treatment for smoking cessation in the belief that they may reduce nicotine withdrawal symptoms.
The objectives of this review are to determine the effectiveness of acupuncture and the related interventions of acupressure, laser therapy and electrostimulation in smoking cessation, in comparison with no intervention, sham treatment, or other interventions.
We searched the Cochrane Tobacco Addiction Group Specialized Register (which includes trials of smoking cessation interventions identified from the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE, and PsycINFO) and AMED in October 2013. We also searched four Chinese databases in September 2013: Sino-Med, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang Data and VIP.
Randomized trials comparing a form of acupuncture, acupressure, laser therapy or electrostimulation with either no intervention, sham treatment or another intervention for smoking cessation.
We extracted data in duplicate on the type of smokers recruited, the nature of the intervention and control procedures, the outcome measures, method of randomization, and completeness of follow-up.We assessed abstinence from smoking at the earliest time-point (before six weeks) and at the last measurement point between six months and one year. We used the most rigorous definition of abstinence for each trial, and biochemically validated rates if available. Those lost to follow-up were counted as continuing smokers. Where appropriate, we performed meta-analysis pooling risk ratios using a fixed-effect model.
We included 38 studies. Based on three studies, acupuncture was not shown to be more effective than a waiting list control for long-term abstinence, with wide confidence intervals and evidence of heterogeneity (n = 393, risk ratio [RR] 1.79, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98 to 3.28, I² = 57%). Compared with sham acupuncture, the RR for the short-term effect of acupuncture was 1.22 (95% CI 1.08 to 1.38), and for the long-term effect was 1.10 (95% CI 0.86 to 1.40). The studies were not judged to be free from bias, and there was evidence of funnel plot asymmetry with larger studies showing smaller effects. The heterogeneity between studies was not explained by the technique used. Acupuncture was less effective than nicotine replacement therapy (NRT). There was no evidence that acupuncture is superior to psychological interventions in the short- or long-term. There is limited evidence that acupressure is superior to sham acupressure for short-term outcomes (3 trials, n = 325, RR 2.54, 95% CI 1.27 to 5.08), but no trials reported long-term effects, The pooled estimate for studies testing an intervention that included continuous auricular stimulation suggested a short-term benefit compared to sham stimulation (14 trials, n = 1155, RR 1.69, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.16); subgroup analysis showed an effect for continuous acupressure (7 studies, n = 496, RR 2.73, 95% CI 1.78 to 4.18) but not acupuncture with indwelling needles (6 studies, n = 659, RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.69). At longer follow-up the CIs did not exclude no effect (5 trials, n = 570, RR 1.47, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.74). The evidence from two trials using laser stimulation was inconsistent and could not be combined. The combined evidence on electrostimulation suggests it is not superior to sham electrostimulation (short-term abstinence: 6 trials, n = 634, RR 1.13, 95% CI 0.87 to 1.46; long-term abstinence: 2 trials, n = 405, RR 0.87, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.23).
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Although pooled estimates suggest possible short-term effects there is no consistent, bias-free evidence that acupuncture, acupressure, or laser therapy have a sustained benefit on smoking cessation for six months or more. However, lack of evidence and methodological problems mean that no firm conclusions can be drawn. Electrostimulation is not effective for smoking cessation. Well-designed research into acupuncture, acupressure and laser stimulation is justified since these are popular interventions and safe when correctly applied, though these interventions alone are likely to be less effective than evidence-based interventions.
针灸及相关技术被推广用于戒烟治疗,人们认为其可能减轻尼古丁戒断症状。
本综述的目的是确定与无干预、假治疗或其他干预措施相比,针灸及指压、激光疗法和电刺激等相关干预措施在戒烟方面的有效性。
我们于2013年10月检索了Cochrane烟草成瘾小组专业注册库(其中包括从Cochrane对照试验中央注册库(CENTRAL)、MEDLINE、EMBASE和PsycINFO中识别出的戒烟干预试验)以及AMED。我们还于2013年9月检索了四个中文数据库:中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、万方数据和维普资讯。
将某种形式的针灸、指压、激光疗法或电刺激与无干预、假治疗或另一种戒烟干预措施进行比较的随机试验。
我们对纳入的吸烟者类型、干预措施和对照程序的性质、结局指标、随机化方法以及随访完整性进行了重复数据提取。我们评估了最早时间点(六周前)以及六个月至一年间最后测量点的戒烟情况。我们对每个试验采用最严格的戒烟定义,如有可用数据则采用生化验证率。失访者被计为继续吸烟者。在适当情况下,我们使用固定效应模型进行荟萃分析合并风险比。
我们纳入了38项研究。基于三项研究,未显示针灸在长期戒烟方面比等待名单对照更有效,置信区间较宽且存在异质性证据(n = 393,风险比[RR] 1.79,95%置信区间[CI] 0.98至3.28,I² = 57%)。与假针灸相比,针灸短期效应的RR为1.22(95% CI 1.08至1.38),长期效应的RR为1.10(95% CI 0.86至1.40)。这些研究未被判定无偏倚,并且有证据表明漏斗图不对称,较大规模研究显示效果较小。研究之间的异质性无法通过所使用的技术来解释。针灸比尼古丁替代疗法(NRT)效果更差。没有证据表明针灸在短期或长期优于心理干预。有有限证据表明指压在短期结局方面优于假指压(3项试验,n = 325,RR 2.54,95% CI 1.27至5.08),但没有试验报告长期效果。对包括持续耳穴刺激的干预措施进行测试的研究的合并估计表明,与假刺激相比有短期益处(14项试验,n = 1155,RR 1.69,95% CI 1.32至2.16);亚组分析显示持续指压有效果(7项试验,n = 496,RR 2.73,95% CI 1.78至4.18),但留置针针灸无效果(6项试验,n = 659,RR 1.24,95% CI 0.91至1.69)。在更长的随访期,置信区间未排除无效果(5项试验,n = 570,RR 1.47,95% CI 0.79至2.74)。两项使用激光刺激的试验证据不一致,无法合并。关于电刺激的综合证据表明其不优于假电刺激(短期戒烟:6项试验,n = 634,RR 1.13,95% CI 0.87至1.46;长期戒烟:2项试验,n = 405,RR 0.87,95% CI 0.61至1.23)。
尽管合并估计表明可能有短期效果,但没有一致的、无偏倚的证据表明针灸、指压或激光疗法对戒烟有持续六个月或更长时间的益处。然而,证据不足和方法学问题意味着无法得出确凿结论。电刺激对戒烟无效。鉴于针灸、指压和激光刺激是常用干预措施且正确应用时安全,因此有必要开展设计良好的研究,尽管这些干预措施单独使用可能不如循证干预措施有效。