Zhi Fang-Yuan, Liu Jie, Ma Xiao-Peng, Hong Jue, Zhang Ji, Zhang Dan, Zhao Yue, Wu Li-Jie, Yang Yan-Ting, Wu Dan-Yan, Xie Chen, Wu Ling-Xiang, Zhang Cui-Hong
Shanghai University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Shanghai 201210, China.
Shanghai Research Institute of Acupuncture and Meridian, Shanghai 200030, China.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2019 Jan 1;2019:1735967. doi: 10.1155/2019/1735967. eCollection 2019.
This systematic review aims to critically evaluate the efficacy of manual acupuncture for optic atrophy. Eight English and Chinese databases, including Cochrane Library, EMbase, PubMed, Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, China Science and Technology Journal Database (VIP), and Chinese Biomedical Literature Database (CBM), as well as ongoing trials registered with the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, were searched to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) studying manual acupuncture for optic atrophy compared to medication alone. The quality of evidence was assessed using Cochrane Collaboration's risk of bias tool. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager version 5.3. Nine studies were identified and included for meta-analysis. The meta-analysis showed significant differences in favor of manual acupuncture or manual acupuncture plus medication compared with medication alone in the following outcome measures: visual acuity (MD = 0.18, 95% CI [0.17, 0.20], < 0.00001), mean sensitivity of visual field (MD = 2.11, 95% CI [1.90, 2.32], < 0.00001), the latent period of P-VEP100 (MD = -6.80, 95% CI [-8.94, -4.66], < 0.00001), the total effectiveness (264 eyes) (OR = 3.22, 95% CI [1.88, 5.51], <0.0001), and the total effectiveness (344 participants) (OR = 4.29, 95% CI [2.56, 7.19], < 0.00001). Despite statistical advantages of manual acupuncture in the literature, due to serious methodological flaws in study design, it cannot be concluded that manual acupuncture is more effective than medicine alone. It is essential that a properly controlled clinical trial is designed and controls are established to exclude placebo effects.
本系统评价旨在严格评估手动针刺治疗视神经萎缩的疗效。检索了八个中英文数据库,包括考克兰图书馆、EMbase、PubMed、中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据库、维普中文科技期刊数据库(VIP)和中国生物医学文献数据库(CBM),以及在世界卫生组织国际临床试验注册平台注册的正在进行的试验,以识别符合条件的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了手动针刺与单独药物治疗视神经萎缩的效果。使用考克兰协作网的偏倚风险工具评估证据质量。使用Review Manager 5.3版进行荟萃分析。共识别出9项研究并纳入荟萃分析。荟萃分析显示,在以下结局指标方面,与单独药物治疗相比,手动针刺或手动针刺加药物治疗具有显著差异:视力(MD = 0.18,95%CI[0.17, 0.20],<0.00001)、视野平均敏感度(MD = 2.11,95%CI[1.90, 2.32],<0.00001)、P-VEP100潜伏期(MD = -6.80,95%CI[-8.94, -4.66],<0.00001)、总有效率(264只眼)(OR = 3.22,95%CI[1.88, 5.51],<0.0001)和总有效率(344名参与者)(OR = 4.29,95%CI[2.56, 7.19],<0.00001)。尽管文献中手动针刺有统计学优势,但由于研究设计存在严重方法学缺陷,不能得出手动针刺比单独药物治疗更有效的结论。必须设计适当的对照临床试验并建立对照组以排除安慰剂效应。