Zhang Jinhuan, Zhang Yanying, Huang Xingxian, Lan Kai, Hu Liyu, Chen Yirong, Yu Haibo
Fourth Clinical Medical School of Guangzhou University of Chinese Medicine, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Shenzhen Traditional Chinese Medicine Hospital, Shenzhen 518033, China.
Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2020 Apr 23;2020:8363027. doi: 10.1155/2020/8363027. eCollection 2020.
To evaluate the quality of methodologies used in previous systematic reviews (SRs) and compare efficacy of different acupuncture therapies for allergic rhinitis.
Seven electronic databases were searched for systematic reviews (SRs) performed on different acupuncture therapies for allergic rhinitis from inception to 15 November 2019. The AMSTAR2 instrument was employed to assess the methodological quality of included SRs. Eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were selected from the included systematic reviews. We also included recent RCTs published by 15 November 2019. Cochrane risk of bias tool was utilized to determine risk of bias of the included RCTs. Pairwise meta-analyses were performed using the random-effects model. Network meta-analysis of the included RCTs was carried out using frequentist framework.
We identified 2 SRs with low quality and 18 SRs with very low quality, both of which contained 33 eligible RCTs ( = 3769). Most of these studies had unclear risk of bias. On the basis of ranking probability, NMA analysis showed that acupuncture at the sphenopalatine ganglion acupoint (OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.61) had the highest probability of improving global allergic rhinitis symptoms, followed by San-Fu-Tie (OR: 1.17, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.27), manual acupuncture (OR:1.15, 95% CI 1.07 to 1.24) compared with conventional western medicine treatment. Moreover, direct comparison of the follow-up period showed that the clinical outcomes of acupuncture and related therapies at three-month (OR:1.34, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.55), six-month (OR: 1.31, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.57), and twelve-month (OR: 1.30, 95%CI 1.11 to 1.53) follow-up were better than those of traditional western medicine.
These results indicate that for patients with allergic rhinitis who are unresponsive to conventional western medicine or cannot tolerate the side effects, acupuncture at the sphenopalatine ganglion acupoint is an effective alternative therapy. Further studies are advocated to deeply explore methodological quality of SRs by incorporating high-quality RCTs.
评估既往系统评价(SRs)中所使用方法的质量,并比较不同针灸疗法治疗变应性鼻炎的疗效。
检索7个电子数据库,查找从建库至2019年11月15日对不同针灸疗法治疗变应性鼻炎进行的系统评价。采用AMSTAR2工具评估纳入系统评价的方法学质量。从纳入的系统评价中选取合格的随机对照试验(RCTs)。我们还纳入了2019年11月15日前发表的近期RCTs。使用Cochrane偏倚风险工具确定纳入RCTs的偏倚风险。采用随机效应模型进行成对荟萃分析。使用频率学派框架对纳入的RCTs进行网状荟萃分析。
我们识别出2篇低质量的系统评价和18篇极低质量的系统评价,二者共包含33项合格的RCTs(n = 3769)。这些研究大多偏倚风险不明确。基于排序概率,网状荟萃分析表明,与传统西医治疗相比,翼腭神经节穴位针刺(比值比:1.31,95%可信区间1.07至1.61)改善变应性鼻炎整体症状的概率最高,其次是三伏贴(比值比:1.17,95%可信区间1.08至1.27)、手针(比值比:1.15,95%可信区间1.07至1.24)。此外,随访期的直接比较显示,在3个月(比值比:1.34,95%可信区间1.17至1.55)、6个月(比值比:1.31,95%可信区间1.10至1.57)和12个月(比值比:1.30,95%可信区间1.11至1.53)随访时,针灸及相关疗法的临床结局优于传统西医。
这些结果表明,对于对传统西医无反应或无法耐受其副作用的变应性鼻炎患者,翼腭神经节穴位针刺是一种有效的替代疗法。提倡进一步开展研究,通过纳入高质量RCTs深入探讨系统评价的方法学质量。