Stroke Center & Neurology Division, The First Affiliated Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong Province 510630, China.
Department of Neurology, The Affiliated Hospital of Youjiang Medical University for Nationalities, Baise, Guangxi Zhuang Autonomous Region 533000, China.
Acupunct Med. 2018 Oct;36(5):284-293. doi: 10.1136/acupmed-2016-011300. Epub 2018 May 18.
The aim of this systematic review was to assess the efficacy/effectiveness and safety of electroacupuncture (EA) in the treatment of post-stroke depression (PSD).
A comprehensive literature search in the Pubmed, Embase, CENTRAL, ISI Web of Science, CNKI and Wanfang databases was conducted, and all relevant randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool and Jadad score were used to assess the risk of bias of included studies, and only RCTs scoring ≥3 were included in a meta-analysis.
18 RCTs involving a total of 813 participants (mean age 61.6 years) in the EA groups and 723 participants (mean age 61.9 years) in the control groups were included. The included studies had an average 3 point Jadad score. PSD was diagnosed according to the Chinese Classification of Cerebrovascular Disease (CCCD) and the Chinese Classification of Mental Disease (CCMD) criteria. There was no significant difference between EA and antidepressants (fluoxetine 10-40 mg/day, citalopram 20 mg/day, sertraline 50 mg/day) in terms of the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAMD) scores at week 4 after treatment (standardised mean difference (SMD) -0.11, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.10), at week 6 after treatment (SMD 0.04, 95% CI -0.43 to 0.51) or at week 8 after treatment (SMD -0.01, 95% CI -0.23 to 0.22). However, the combined incidence of adverse events in the EA groups was significantly lower than in the antidepressant groups (RR 0.21, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.33).
There was no significant difference between EA and antidepressants in the severity of depression, however EA caused fewer adverse events than antidepressants. Additional larger scale RCTs with rigorous study design are required.
本系统评价旨在评估电针(EA)治疗中风后抑郁(PSD)的疗效和安全性。
通过对 Pubmed、Embase、CENTRAL、ISI Web of Science、CNKI 和万方数据库进行全面文献检索,由两位独立评审员筛选符合条件的随机对照试验(RCT)。采用 Cochrane 协作工具和 Jadad 评分评估纳入研究的偏倚风险,仅纳入 Jadad 评分≥3 的 RCT 进行荟萃分析。
纳入了 18 项 RCT,共 813 名 EA 组患者(平均年龄 61.6 岁)和 723 名对照组患者(平均年龄 61.9 岁)。纳入研究的 Jadad 平均得分为 3 分。PSD 根据《中国脑血管病分类(CCCD)》和《中国精神疾病分类(CCMD)》标准进行诊断。在治疗后第 4 周的汉密尔顿抑郁量表(HAMD)评分(SMD -0.11,95%CI -0.31 至 0.10)、治疗后第 6 周(SMD 0.04,95%CI -0.43 至 0.51)和治疗后第 8 周(SMD -0.01,95%CI -0.23 至 0.22),EA 与抗抑郁药(氟西汀 10-40mg/天、西酞普兰 20mg/天、舍曲林 50mg/天)之间无显著差异。然而,EA 组的不良反应综合发生率显著低于抗抑郁药组(RR 0.21,95%CI 0.14 至 0.33)。
EA 与抗抑郁药在抑郁严重程度方面无显著差异,但 EA 引起的不良反应少于抗抑郁药。需要进行更多设计严谨的大型 RCT 来进一步研究。