Garcia M Kay, McQuade Jennifer, Lee Richard, Haddad Robin, Spano Michael, Cohen Lorenzo
Department of General Oncology, Integrative Medicine Program, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Boulevard, Unit 0462, Houston, TX, 77030, USA,
Curr Oncol Rep. 2014 Dec;16(12):418. doi: 10.1007/s11912-014-0418-9.
In a previous systematic review of the worldwide literature of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) involving needle insertion into acupuncture points for symptom management in cancer patients, we identified only one high-quality RCT that was deemed to have a low risk of bias. Medline, Embase, CINAHL, Cochrane (all databases), Scopus, and PubMed were searched from inception through December 2011 with no language limits applied. A total of 41 RCTs met all inclusion criteria and were rated. In the current review, we examined 18 trials published since our last report. The purpose of this update was to emphasize important recent findings and discuss how concerns such as blinding, separating non-specific placebo effects from specific needling effects, determining biologic mechanisms and dosing parameters, evaluating determinants of response such as expectation, controlling for sources of bias, and the lack of standardization in treatment and study methods may affect the interpretation of study results.
在之前一项针对全球范围内关于针刺穴位用于癌症患者症状管理的随机对照试验（RCT）文献的系统评价中，我们仅识别出一项高质量的RCT，该试验被认为偏倚风险较低。检索了Medline、Embase、CINAHL、Cochrane（所有数据库）、Scopus和PubMed，检索时间从各数据库建库至2011年12月，不设语言限制。共有41项RCT符合所有纳入标准并被评级。在本次评价中，我们检查了自上次报告以来发表的18项试验。本次更新的目的是强调近期的重要发现，并讨论诸如盲法、将非特异性安慰剂效应与特异性针刺效应区分开来、确定生物学机制和剂量参数、评估诸如期望等反应决定因素、控制偏倚来源以及治疗和研究方法缺乏标准化等问题如何可能影响研究结果的解释。
