Nielsen Arya
Explore (NY). 2017 May-Jun;13(3):228-231. doi: 10.1016/j.explore.2017.03.007. Epub 2017 Mar 6.
Linde K, Allais G, Brinkhaus B, et al. Acupuncture for the prevention of tension-type headache.Cochrane Database Syst Rev2016, Issue 48. Art No.: CD007587. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007587.pub2.
Acupuncture is often used for prevention of tension-type headache but its effectiveness is still controversial. This is an update of our Cochrane review originally published in Issue 1, 2009 of The Cochrane Library.
To investigate whether acupuncture is (a) more effective than no prophylactic treatment/routine care only; (b) more effective than "sham" (placebo) acupuncture; and (c) as effective as other interventions in reducing headache frequency in adults with episodic or chronic tension-type headache.
We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and AMED to 19 January 2016. We searched the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform to 10 February 2016 for ongoing and unpublished trials.
We included randomized trials with a post-randomization observation period of at least eight weeks, which compared the clinical effects of an acupuncture intervention with a control (treatment of acute headaches only or routine care), a sham acupuncture intervention or another prophylactic intervention in adults with episodic or chronic tension-type headache.
Two review authors checked eligibility; extracted information on participants, interventions, methods and results; and assessed study risk of bias and the quality of the acupuncture intervention. The main efficacy outcome measure was response (at least 50% reduction of headache frequency) after completion of treatment (three to four months after randomization). To assess safety/acceptability we extracted the number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects and the number of participants reporting adverse effects. We assessed the quality of the evidence using Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).
Twelve trials (11 included in the previous version and one newly identified) with 2349 participants (median = 56, range: 10-1265) met the inclusion criteria. Acupuncture was compared with routine care or treatment of acute headaches only in two large trials (1265 and 207 participants), but they had quite different baseline headache frequency and management in the control groups. Neither trial was blinded but trial quality was otherwise high (low risk of bias). While effect size estimates of the two trials differed considerably, the proportion of participants experiencing at least 50% reduction of headache frequency was much higher in groups receiving acupuncture than in control groups (moderate quality evidence; trial 1: 302/629 (48%) versus 121/636 (19%); risk ratio (RR) = 2.5; 95% confidence interval (CI): 2.1-3.0; trial 2: 60/132 (45%) versus 3/75 (4%); RR = 11; 95% CI: 3.7-35). Long-term effects (beyond four months) were not investigated. Acupuncture was compared with sham acupuncture in seven trials of moderate- to high-quality (low risk of bias); five large studies provided data for one or more meta-analyses. Among participants receiving acupuncture, 205 of 391 (51%) had at least 50% reduction of headache frequency compared to 133 of 312 (43%) in the sham group after treatment (RR = 1.3; 95% CI: 1.09-1.5; four trials; moderate quality evidence). Results six months after randomization were similar. Withdrawals were low: 1 of 420 participants receiving acupuncture dropped out due to adverse effects and 0 of 343 receiving sham (six trials; low quality evidence). Three trials reported the number of participants reporting adverse effects: 29 of 174 (17%) with acupuncture versus 12 of 103 with sham (12%; odds ratio (OR) = 1.3; 95% CI: 0.60-2.7; low quality evidence). Acupuncture was compared with physiotherapy, massage, or exercise in four trials of low to moderate quality (high risk of bias); study findings were inadequately reported. No trial found a significant superiority of acupuncture and for some outcomes the results slightly favored the comparison therapy. None of these trials reported the number of participants dropping out due to adverse effects or the number of participants reporting adverse effects. Overall, the quality of the evidence assessed using GRADE was moderate or low, downgraded mainly due to a lack of blinding and variable effect sizes. AUTHORS׳ CONCLUSIONS: The available results suggest that acupuncture is effective for treating frequent episodic or chronic tension-type headaches, but further trials-particularly comparing acupuncture with other treatment options-are needed.
林德K、阿莱伊斯G、布林克豪斯B等。针刺预防紧张型头痛。《考克兰系统评价数据库》2016年第4期。文章编号:CD007587。DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD007587.pub2。
针刺常用于预防紧张型头痛,但其有效性仍存在争议。这是我们最初发表于《考克兰图书馆》2009年第1期的考克兰综述的更新版。
探讨针刺是否(a)比不进行预防性治疗/仅进行常规护理更有效;(b)比“假”(安慰剂)针刺更有效;以及(c)在减少发作性或慢性紧张型头痛成人的头痛频率方面与其他干预措施效果相同。
我们检索了截至2016年1月19日的CENTRAL、MEDLINE、EMBASE和AMED。我们检索了截至2016年2月10日的世界卫生组织(WHO)国际临床试验注册平台,以查找正在进行和未发表的试验。
我们纳入了随机化后观察期至少为8周的随机试验,这些试验比较了针刺干预与对照(仅治疗急性头痛或常规护理)、假针刺干预或其他预防性干预对发作性或慢性紧张型头痛成人的临床效果。
两位综述作者检查了纳入资格;提取了关于参与者、干预措施、方法和结果的信息;并评估了研究的偏倚风险和针刺干预的质量。主要疗效结局指标是治疗完成后(随机化后三至四个月)的反应(头痛频率至少降低50%)。为评估安全性/可接受性,我们提取了因不良反应退出的参与者数量以及报告不良反应的参与者数量。我们使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价(GRADE)来评估证据质量。
12项试验(之前版本纳入11项,新识别1项),共2349名参与者(中位数 = 56,范围:10 - 1265)符合纳入标准。在两项大型试验(分别有1265名和207名参与者)中,针刺与常规护理或仅治疗急性头痛进行了比较,但对照组的基线头痛频率和管理差异很大。两项试验均未设盲,但试验质量在其他方面较高(偏倚风险低)。虽然两项试验的效应量估计差异很大,但接受针刺治疗的组中头痛频率至少降低50%的参与者比例远高于对照组(中等质量证据;试验1:302/629(48%)对121/636(19%);风险比(RR) = 2.5;95%置信区间(CI):2.1 - 3.0;试验)。未对四个月后的长期效应进行研究。在七项中高质量试验(偏倚风险低)中,针刺与假针刺进行了比较;五项大型研究为一项或多项荟萃分析提供了数据。治疗后接受针刺的参与者中,391名中有205名(51%)头痛频率至少降低50%,而假针刺组312名中有133名(43%)(RR = 1.3;95% CI:1.09 - 1.5;四项试验;中等质量证据)。随机化六个月后的结果相似。退出率较低:接受针刺的420名参与者中有1名因不良反应退出,接受假针刺的343名中无退出者(六项试验;低质量证据)。三项试验报告了报告不良反应的参与者数量:接受针刺的174名中有29名(17%),接受假针刺的103名中有12名(12%)(优势比(OR) = 1.3;95% CI:0.60 - 2.7;低质量证据)。在四项低至中等质量试验(偏倚风险高)中,针刺与物理治疗、按摩或运动进行了比较;研究结果报告不充分。没有试验发现针刺有显著优势,对于某些结局,结果略微有利于对照疗法。这些试验均未报告因不良反应退出的参与者数量或报告不良反应的参与者数量。总体而言,使用GRADE评估的证据质量为中等或低等,主要因缺乏设盲和效应量可变而降级。
现有结果表明针刺对治疗频繁发作性或慢性紧张型头痛有效,但需要进一步试验,尤其是将针刺与其他治疗选择进行比较的试验。