Grant Sean, Kandrack Ryan, Motala Aneesa, Shanman Roberta, Booth Marika, Miles Jeremy, Sorbero Melony, Hempel Susanne
RAND, 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA.
RAND, 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138, USA.
Drug Alcohol Depend. 2016 Jun 1;163:1-15. doi: 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2016.02.034. Epub 2016 Mar 3.
This systematic review aims to estimate the effects of acupuncture for adults with substance use disorders (SUDs).
We searched 7 electronic databases and bibliographies of previous studies to identify eligible randomized trials. Two independent reviewers screened citations, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We performed random effects meta-analyses. We assessed quality of evidence using the GRADE approach.
We included 41 studies with 5,227 participants. No significant differences were observed between acupuncture and comparators (passive controls, sham acupuncture, treatment as usual, and active interventions) at post-intervention for relapse (SMD -0.12; 95%CI -0.46 to 0.22; 10 RCTs), frequency of substance use (SMD -0.27; -2.67 to 2.13; 2 RCTs), quantity of substance use (SMD 0.01; -0.40 to 0.43; 3 RCTs), and treatment dropout (OR 0.82; 0.63 to 1.09; 22 RCTs). We identified a significant difference in favor of acupuncture versus comparators for withdrawal/craving at post-intervention (SMD -0.57, -0.93 to -0.20; 20 RCTs), but we identified evidence of publication bias. We also identified a significant difference in favor of acupuncture versus comparators for anxiety at post-intervention (SMD -0.74, -1.15 to -0.33; 6 RCTs). Results for withdrawal/craving and anxiety symptoms were not significant at longer follow-up. Safety data (12 RCTs) suggests little risk of serious adverse events, though participants may experience slight bleeding or pain at needle insertion sites.
Available evidence suggests no consistent differences between acupuncture and comparators for substance use. Results in favor of acupuncture for withdrawal/craving and anxiety symptoms are limited by low quality bodies of evidence.
本系统评价旨在评估针刺疗法对患有物质使用障碍(SUDs)的成年人的疗效。
我们检索了7个电子数据库和既往研究的参考文献,以识别符合条件的随机试验。两名独立的评审员筛选文献、提取数据并评估偏倚风险。我们进行了随机效应荟萃分析。我们使用GRADE方法评估证据质量。
我们纳入了41项研究,共5227名参与者。在干预后,针刺疗法与对照措施(被动对照、假针刺、常规治疗和积极干预)在复发方面无显著差异(标准化均数差[SMD] -0.12;95%置信区间[CI] -0.46至0.22;10项随机对照试验)、物质使用频率(SMD -0.27;-2.67至2.13;2项随机对照试验)、物质使用量(SMD 0.01;-0.40至0.43;3项随机对照试验)以及治疗退出率(比值比[OR] 0.82;0.63至1.09;22项随机对照试验)方面均未观察到显著差异。我们发现干预后在戒断/渴求方面针刺疗法优于对照措施存在显著差异(SMD -0.57,-0.93至-0.20;20项随机对照试验),但我们发现了发表偏倚的证据。我们还发现干预后在焦虑方面针刺疗法优于对照措施存在显著差异(SMD -0.74,-1.15至-0.33;6项随机对照试验)。在更长时间的随访中,戒断/渴求及焦虑症状的结果并不显著。安全性数据(12项随机对照试验)表明严重不良事件风险较小,尽管参与者可能在针刺部位出现轻微出血或疼痛。
现有证据表明针刺疗法与对照措施在物质使用方面无一致差异。针刺疗法在戒断/渴求及焦虑症状方面的优势结果受到低质量证据的限制。