Guangzhou Xinhua University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
South China University of Technology, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024 May 22;29(3):162-170. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112434.
To assess the relative benefits of various non-pharmacological interventions on treating primary dysmenorrhoea within a network meta-analysis.
Systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis.
Randomised controlled trial involving patient with primary dysmenorrhoea and received non-pharmacological interventions.
Four databases (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library and Web of Science) were searched from inception to October first, 2022.
RISK-OF-BIAS ROB ASSESSMENT: RoB 2.0 assessment tools was used to assess the risk of bias in the included studies.
Conventional meta-analysis was conducted by pairwise comparison between non-pharmacological therapy and control treatment. The Bayesian network meta-analysis was conducted by the Aggregate Data Drug Information System Software based on the consistency or inconsistency model, and rank probability was used to indicate the priority of non-pharmacological therapy.
33 studies involving eight non-pharmacological interventions were included. With regard to conventional meta-analysis, we selected Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) as primary outcome to evaluate the pain intensity. The result showed that eight interventions (Exercise, Herb, Acupuncture, Aromatherapy, Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation, Topical heat, Acupressure, Yoga) displayed positive effect on reduction of menstrual pain compared with placebo or no treatment. A Bayesian network meta-analysis revealed that exercise -3.20 (95% CI -4.01 to -2.34), acupuncture -2.90 (95% CI -3.97 to -2.85) and topical heat -2.97 (95% CI -4.66 to -1.29) probably resulted in a reduction in pain intensity (VAS) .
Non-pharmacological interventions may result in a reduction or slight reduction in pain intensity compared with no treatment or placebo. Specifically, exercise and acupuncture are considered as potentially effective non-pharmacological treatments in short-term treatment. Indeed, larger and better methodological quality research is needed.
CRD42022351021.
通过网状meta 分析评估各种非药物干预措施治疗原发性痛经的相对益处。
系统评价和贝叶斯网状meta 分析。
涉及原发性痛经患者并接受非药物干预的随机对照试验。
从开始到 2022 年 10 月 1 日，在 4 个数据库（Medline、Embase、Cochrane 图书馆和 Web of Science）中进行了搜索。
使用 RoB 2.0 评估工具评估纳入研究的偏倚风险。
通过非药物治疗与对照治疗之间的两两比较进行常规荟萃分析。基于一致性或不一致性模型，使用 Aggregate Data Drug Information System 软件进行贝叶斯网状meta 分析，并使用等级概率表示非药物治疗的优先级。
纳入了 33 项涉及 8 种非药物干预的研究。关于常规荟萃分析，我们选择视觉模拟量表（VAS）作为主要结局来评估疼痛强度。结果表明，与安慰剂或无治疗相比，八种干预措施（运动、草药、针灸、芳香疗法、经皮神经电刺激、局部热疗、穴位按压、瑜伽）对减轻月经痛均有积极作用。贝叶斯网状meta 分析显示，运动-3.20（95%置信区间-4.01 至-2.34）、针灸-2.90（95%置信区间-3.97 至-2.85）和局部热疗-2.97（95%置信区间-4.66 至-1.29）可能会降低疼痛强度（VAS）。
与无治疗或安慰剂相比，非药物干预可能会导致疼痛强度降低或略有降低。具体来说，运动和针灸被认为是短期治疗中潜在有效的非药物治疗方法。实际上，需要更大规模和更高方法学质量的研究。
CRD42022351021。
Zotero 插件
