Suppr超能文献

当前东亚国家低腰痛临床实践指南如何体现传统医学:对临床实践指南和系统评价的系统评价。

How current Clinical Practice Guidelines for low back pain reflect Traditional Medicine in East Asian Countries: a systematic review of Clinical Practice Guidelines and systematic reviews.

机构信息

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Korean Medicine, Spine and Joint Center, Pusan National University Korean Medicine Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.

Department of Rehabilitation Medicine of Korean Medicine, Spine and Joint Center, Pusan National University Korean Medicine Hospital, Yangsan, Republic of Korea ; Division of Clinical Medicine, School of Korean Medicine, Pusan National University, Yangsan, Republic of Korea.

出版信息

PLoS One. 2014 Feb 5;9(2):e88027. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088027. eCollection 2014.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

The aims of this study were to investigate whether there is a gap between evidence of traditional medicine (TM) interventions in East-Asian countries from the current Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) and evidence from current systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SR-MAs) and to analyze the impact of this gap on present CPGs.

METHODS

We examined 5 representative TM interventions in the health care systems of East-Asian countries. We searched seven relevant databases for CPGs to identify whether core CPGs included evidence of TM interventions, and we searched 11 databases for SR-MAs to re-evaluate current evidence on TM interventions. We then compared the gap between the evidence from CPGs and SR-MAs.

RESULTS

Thirteen CPGs and 22 SR-MAs met our inclusion criteria. Of the 13 CPGs, 7 CPGs (54%) mentioned TM interventions, and all were for acupuncture (only one was for both acupuncture and acupressure). However, the CPGs did not recommend acupuncture (or acupressure). Of 22 SR-MAs, 16 were for acupuncture, 5 for manual therapy, 1 for cupping, and none for moxibustion and herbal medicine. Comparing the evidence from CPGs and SR-MAs, an underestimation or omission of evidence for acupuncture, cupping, and manual therapy in current CPGs was detected. Thus, applying the results from the SR-MAs, we moderately recommend acupuncture for chronic LBP, but we inconclusively recommend acupuncture for (sub)acute LBP due to the limited current evidence. Furthermore, we weakly recommend cupping and manual therapy for both (sub)acute and chronic LBP. We cannot provide recommendations for moxibustion and herbal medicine due to a lack of evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

The current CPGs did not fully reflect the evidence for TM interventions. As relevant studies such as SR-MAs are conducted and evidence increases, the current evidence on acupuncture, cupping, and manual therapy should be rigorously considered in the process of developing or updating the CPG system.

摘要

目的

本研究旨在调查东亚国家现行临床实践指南(CPG)中传统医学(TM)干预措施的证据与当前系统评价和荟萃分析(SR-MAs)证据之间是否存在差距,并分析该差距对现行 CPG 的影响。

方法

我们考察了东亚国家医疗体系中 5 种具有代表性的 TM 干预措施。我们检索了 7 个相关数据库以确定核心 CPG 是否纳入 TM 干预措施的证据,并检索了 11 个数据库以重新评估 TM 干预措施的当前证据。然后,我们比较了 CPG 和 SR-MAs 证据之间的差距。

结果

符合纳入标准的 CPG 有 13 项,SR-MAs 有 22 项。在这 13 项 CPG 中,有 7 项 CPG(54%)提到了 TM 干预措施,且均为针刺(仅有 1 项为针刺和指压),但 CPG 并未推荐针刺(或指压)。在 22 项 SR-MAs 中,有 16 项是针刺,5 项是手法治疗,1 项是拔罐,没有艾灸和草药的相关研究。比较 CPG 和 SR-MAs 的证据发现,当前 CPG 对针刺、拔罐和手法治疗证据存在低估或遗漏。因此,根据 SR-MAs 的结果,我们适度推荐针刺治疗慢性 LBP,但由于当前证据有限,我们不能明确推荐针刺治疗(亚)急性 LBP。此外,我们弱推荐拔罐和手法治疗(亚)急性和慢性 LBP。由于缺乏证据,我们无法为艾灸和草药提供推荐。

结论

现行 CPG 并未充分反映 TM 干预措施的证据。随着相关研究(如 SR-MAs)的开展和证据的增加,在制定或更新 CPG 系统时,应严格考虑针刺、拔罐和手法治疗的现有证据。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/3dd1/3914865/5a4341f33c8a/pone.0088027.g001.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验