Tian Hao, Chen Yunhui, Sun Mingsheng, Huang Liuyang, Xu Guixing, Yang Chunyang, Luo Qin, Zhao Ling, Wei Zheng, Liang Fanrong
College of Acupuncture and Tuina, The 3rd Teaching Hospital, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
College of Basic Medicine, Chengdu University of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chengdu, Sichuan, China.
Front Oncol. 2023 Mar 27;13:1071326. doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1071326. eCollection 2023.
Cancer-related fatigue (CRF) is one of the most commonly reported symptoms impacting cancer survivors. This study evaluated and compared the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture treatments for CRF.
We searched PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, China Biology Medicine China National Knowledge Infrastructure, China Science and Technology Journal Database, and WanFang Database from inception to November 2022 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing acupuncture treatments with sham interventions, waitlist (WL), or usual care (UC) for CRF treatment. The outcomes included the Cancer Fatigue Scale (CFS) and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and pair-wise and Bayesian network meta-analyses were performed using STATA v17.0.
In total, 34 randomized controlled trials featuring 2632 participants were included. In the network meta-analysis, the primary analysis using CFS illustrated that point application (PA) + UC (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -1.33, 95% CI = -2.02, -0.63) had the highest probability of improving CFS, followed by manual acupuncture (MA) + PA (SMD = -1.21, 95% CI = -2.05, -0.38) and MA + UC (SMD = -0.80, 95% CI = -1.50, -0.09). Moreover, the adverse events of these interventions were acceptable.
This study demonstrated that acupuncture was effective and safe on CRF treatment. However, further studies are still warranted by incorporating more large-scale and high-quality RCTs.
https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO, identifier CRD42022339769.
癌症相关疲劳(CRF)是癌症幸存者最常报告的症状之一。本研究评估并比较了针刺治疗CRF的有效性和安全性。
我们检索了PubMed、Embase、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆、中国生物医学文献数据库、中国知网、中国科技期刊数据库和万方数据库,检索时间从建库至2022年11月,以确定符合条件的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了针刺治疗与假干预、等待列表(WL)或常规护理(UC)对CRF的治疗效果。结局指标包括癌症疲劳量表(CFS)和匹兹堡睡眠质量指数(PSQI),并使用STATA v17.0进行成对和贝叶斯网络荟萃分析。
共纳入34项随机对照试验,涉及2632名参与者。在网络荟萃分析中,使用CFS的主要分析表明,穴位贴敷(PA)+UC(标准化均值差[SMD]=-1.33,95%CI=-2.02,-0.63)改善CFS的概率最高,其次是毫针针刺(MA)+PA(SMD=-1.21,95%CI=-2.05,-0.38)和MA+UC(SMD=-0.80,95%CI=-1.50,-0.09)。此外,这些干预措施的不良事件是可接受的。
本研究表明针刺治疗CRF有效且安全。然而,仍需要纳入更多大规模、高质量的RCT进行进一步研究。