Shen Xiaohong, Xia Jun, Adams Clive E
Shanghai Shuguang Hospital, Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, No 185 Pu'an Road, Shanghai, China, 200021.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014 Oct 20;2014(10):CD005475. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD005475.pub2.
Acupuncture, with many categories such as traditional acupuncture, electroacupuncture, laser acupuncture, and acupoint injection, has been shown to be relatively safe with few adverse effects. It is accessible and inexpensive, at least in China, and is likely to be widely used there for psychotic symptoms.
To review the effects of acupuncture, alone or in combination treatments compared with placebo (or no treatment) or any other treatments for people with schizophrenia or related psychoses.
We searched Cochrane Schizophrenia Group's Trials Register (February 2012), which is based on regular searches of CINAHL, BIOSIS, AMED, EMBASE, PubMed, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and clinical trials registries. We also inspected references of identified studies and contacted relevant authors for additional information.
We included all relevant randomised controlled trials involving people with schizophrenia-like illnesses, comparing acupuncture added to standard dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics alone, acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics with standard dose antipsychotics, acupuncture with antipsychotics, acupuncture added to Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) drug with TCM drug, acupuncture with TCM drug, electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy.
We reliably extracted data from all included studies, discussed any disagreement, documented decisions and contacted authors of studies when necessary. We analysed binary outcomes using a standard estimation of risk ratio (RR) and its 95% confidence interval (CI). For continuous data, we calculated mean differences with 95% CI. For homogeneous data we used fixed-effect model. We assessed risk of bias for included studies and created 'Summary of findings' tables using GRADE.
After an update search in 2012 the review now includes 30 studies testing different forms of acupuncture across six different comparisons. All studies were at moderate risk of bias.When acupuncture plus standard antipsychotic treatment was compared with standard antipsychotic treatment alone, people were at less risk of being 'not improved' (n = 244, 3 RCTs, medium-term RR 0.40 CI 0.28 to 0.57, very low quality evidence). Mental state findings were mostly consistent with this finding as was time in hospital (n = 120, 1 RCT, days MD -16.00 CI -19.54 to -12.46, moderate quality evidence). If anything, adverse effects were less for the acupuncture group (e.g. central nervous system, insomnia, short-term, n = 202, 3 RCTs, RR 0.30 CI 0.11 to 0.83, low quality evidence).When acupuncture was added to low dose antipsychotics and this was compared with standard dose antipsychotic drugs, relapse was less in the experimental group (n = 170, 1 RCT, long-term RR 0.57 CI 0.37 to 0.89, very low quality evidence) but there was no difference for the outcome of 'not improved'. Again, mental state findings were mostly consistent with the latter. Incidences of extrapyramidal symptoms - akathisia, were less for those in the acupuncture added to low dose antipsychotics group (n = 180, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.03 CI 0.00 to 0.49, low quality evidence) - as dry mouth, blurred vision and tachycardia.When acupuncture was compared with antipsychotic drugs of known efficacy in standard doses, there were equivocal data for outcomes such as 'not improved' using different global state criteria. Traditional acupuncture added to TCM drug had benefit over use of TCM drug alone (n = 360, 2 RCTs, RR no clinically important change 0.11 CI 0.02 to 0.59, low quality evidence), but when traditional acupuncture was compared with TCM drug directly there was no significant difference in the short-term. However, we found that participants given electroacupuncture were significantly less likely to experience a worsening in global state (n = 88, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.52 CI 0.34 to 0.80, low quality evidence).In the one study that compared electric acupuncture convulsive therapy with electroconvulsive therapy there were significantly different rates of spinal fracture between the groups (n = 68, 1 RCT, short-term RR 0.33 CI 0.14 to 0.81, low quality evidence). Attrition in all studies was minimal. No studies reported death, engagement with services, satisfaction with treatment, quality of life, or economic outcomes.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Limited evidence suggests that acupuncture may have some antipsychotic effects as measured on global and mental state with few adverse effects. Better designed large studies are needed to fully and fairly test the effects of acupuncture for people with schizophrenia.
针灸有多种类型,如传统针刺、电针、激光针刺和穴位注射,已被证明相对安全,不良反应较少。它易于获得且成本低廉,至少在中国是这样,很可能在中国被广泛用于治疗精神症状。
综述单独使用针灸或与安慰剂(或不治疗)或任何其他治疗方法联合使用时,对精神分裂症或相关精神病患者的疗效。
我们检索了Cochrane精神分裂症研究组试验注册库(2012年2月),该注册库基于对CINAHL、BIOSIS、AMED、EMBASE、PubMed、MEDLINE、PsycINFO和临床试验注册库的定期检索。我们还查阅了已识别研究的参考文献,并联系相关作者以获取更多信息。
我们纳入了所有涉及精神分裂症样疾病患者的相关随机对照试验,比较了标准剂量抗精神病药物加针灸与单独使用标准剂量抗精神病药物、低剂量抗精神病药物加针灸与标准剂量抗精神病药物、针灸与抗精神病药物、中药加针灸与中药、针灸与中药、电针惊厥治疗与电惊厥治疗。
我们从所有纳入研究中可靠地提取数据,讨论任何分歧,记录决策,并在必要时联系研究作者。我们使用风险比(RR)及其95%置信区间(CI)的标准估计分析二元结局。对于连续数据,我们计算了95%CI的平均差异。对于同质数据,我们使用固定效应模型。我们评估了纳入研究的偏倚风险,并使用GRADE创建了“结果总结”表。
在2012年进行更新检索后,本综述现在包括30项研究,这些研究在六种不同的比较中测试了不同形式的针灸。所有研究的偏倚风险均为中等。当将针灸加标准抗精神病药物治疗与单独使用标准抗精神病药物治疗进行比较时,患者“未改善”的风险较低(n = 244,3项随机对照试验,中期RR 0.40,CI 0.28至0.57,极低质量证据)。精神状态结果大多与此结果一致,住院时间也是如此(n = 120,1项随机对照试验,天数MD -16.00,CI -19.54至-12.46,中等质量证据)。如果有差异的话,针灸组的不良反应较少(例如中枢神经系统、失眠、短期,n = 202,3项随机对照试验,RR 0.30,CI 0.11至0.83,低质量证据)。当在低剂量抗精神病药物中加入针灸并与标准剂量抗精神病药物进行比较时,实验组的复发率较低(n = 170,1项随机对照试验,长期RR 0.57,CI 0.37至0.89,极低质量证据),但在“未改善”的结局方面没有差异。同样,精神状态结果大多与后者一致。在低剂量抗精神病药物加针灸组中,锥体外系症状——静坐不能的发生率较低(n = 180,1项随机对照试验,短期RR 0.03,CI 0.00至0.49,低质量证据),口干、视力模糊和心动过速的发生率也较低。当将针灸与标准剂量的已知有效抗精神病药物进行比较时,使用不同的整体状态标准,如“未改善”等结局的数据不明确。中药加传统针灸比单独使用中药更有益(n = 360,2项随机对照试验,RR无临床重要变化0.11,CI 0.02至0.59,低质量证据),但当直接将传统针灸与中药进行比较时,短期内没有显著差异。然而,我们发现接受电针治疗的参与者整体状态恶化的可能性显著降低(n = 88,1项随机对照试验,短期RR 0.52,CI 0.34至0.80,低质量证据)。在一项比较电针惊厥治疗与电惊厥治疗的研究中,两组之间的脊柱骨折发生率有显著差异(n = 68,1项随机对照试验,短期RR 0.33,CI 0.14至0.81,低质量证据)。所有研究中的失访率都很低。没有研究报告死亡、服务参与情况、治疗满意度、生活质量或经济结局。
有限的证据表明,针灸在整体和精神状态方面可能具有一些抗精神病作用,且不良反应较少。需要设计更完善的大型研究来全面、公正地测试针灸对精神分裂症患者的疗效。