Suppr超能文献

艾灸治疗慢性腰痛的疗效和安全性:随机对照试验的系统评价和荟萃分析。

Efficacy and safety of moxibustion for chronic low back pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

机构信息

School of Nursing, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 210000, China.

The First Clinical Medical College, Nanjing University of Chinese Medicine, Nanjing, Jiangsu Province, 210000, China.

出版信息

Complement Ther Clin Pract. 2020 May;39:101130. doi: 10.1016/j.ctcp.2020.101130. Epub 2020 Feb 29.

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

To systematically review and meta-analyze the efficacy of moxibustion in treating patients with chronic low back pain (CLBP).

METHODS

A systematic search of the Cochrane Library, Web of Science, PubMed, Embase, EBSCO, CBM, Wanfang, CNKI and VIP (until November, 2019) was used to identify studies reporting pain intensity (VAS or NRS), disability (ODI or RMDQ), JOA score, and quality of life (SF-36) in patients with CLBP. Study selection, data extraction was performed critically and independently by two reviewers. Cochrane criteria for risk of bias was used to assess the methodological quality of the trials. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation Methodology (GRADE) was applied to test the quality of evidence from the quantitative analysis.

RESULTS

Ten RCTs, including 987 patients, met the inclusion criteria. Moxibustion had a superior effect on VAS score when compared with western medicine [RR = -1.69, 95%CI(-2.40, -0.98), p < 0.00001] and acupuncture [RR = -0.47, 95%CI(-0.92, -0.02), p=0.04], but it failed to do so when compared with core stability training [RR = -0.41, 95%CI(-0.87, 0.05), p=0.08]. The result showed that moxibustion plus other active treatments (including western medicine, massage, acupuncture and core stability training) had better effects on low back pain relief compared with active treatments alone. Moxibustion showed favourable effects on disability [SMD = -3.80, 95%CI (-5.49, -2.11), p < 0.0001], JOA score [MD = 4.10, 95%CI(2.30, 5.90), p < 0.00001], and SF-36 score [MD = 13.41, 95%CI(9.68, 17.14), p < 0.00001]. The evidence level of the results from the ten studies was determined to be very low to low.

CONCLUSIONS

It is difficult to draw firm conclusions that moxibustion is an effective intervention for treating CLBP due to the small sample size of eligible trails and the high risk of bias among the available articles. Rigorously designed large-scale RCTs are required to further confirm the results in this review.

摘要

简介

系统评价和荟萃分析艾灸治疗慢性下腰痛(CLBP)患者的疗效。

方法

系统检索 Cochrane 图书馆、Web of Science、PubMed、Embase、EBSCO、CBM、万方、CNKI 和 VIP(截至 2019 年 11 月),以确定报告疼痛强度(VAS 或 NRS)、残疾(ODI 或 RMDQ)、JOA 评分和生活质量(SF-36)的 CLBP 患者的研究。由两名评审员批判性地独立进行研究选择和数据提取。采用 Cochrane 偏倚风险标准评估试验的方法学质量。应用推荐评估、制定与评价方法(GRADE)评估定量分析证据的质量。

结果

符合纳入标准的 10 项 RCT 共纳入 987 例患者。与西药相比,艾灸在 VAS 评分上具有更好的效果[RR=-1.69,95%CI(-2.40,-0.98),p<0.00001]和针灸[RR=-0.47,95%CI(-0.92,-0.02),p=0.04],但与核心稳定性训练相比则不然[RR=-0.41,95%CI(-0.87,0.05),p=0.08]。结果表明,艾灸加其他主动治疗(包括西药、按摩、针灸和核心稳定性训练)与单独主动治疗相比,对缓解腰痛有更好的效果。艾灸对残疾[SMD=-3.80,95%CI(-5.49,-2.11),p<0.0001]、JOA 评分[MD=4.10,95%CI(2.30,5.90),p<0.00001]和 SF-36 评分[MD=13.41,95%CI(9.68,17.14),p<0.00001]均有较好的疗效。10 项研究的结果证据水平被确定为极低至低。

结论

由于合格试验的样本量小,以及现有文章的偏倚风险高,很难得出艾灸是治疗 CLBP 的有效干预措施的明确结论。需要进行严格设计的大型 RCT 来进一步证实本综述的结果。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验