Li Xia, Sun Yanan, Wang Yuhan, Wang Xiyou, Yu Changhe
Tuina and Pain Management Department, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine Affiliated Dongzhimen Hospital, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
Traditional Chinese Medicine Department, Xuanwu Hospital Capital Medical University, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
J Pain Res. 2024 May 6;17:1663-1681. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S457381. eCollection 2024.
This research aimed to assess the effectiveness of manual therapy in alleviating pain among women undergoing primary dysmenorrhea (PD).
All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) regarding manual therapy for PD were searched from online databases, spanning from their inception to July 2023. The identified literature underwent a thorough screening process, and the data were meticulously extracted and analyzed using RevMan 5.3. Subsequently, the included studies underwent Cochrane's quality assessment and meta-analysis. The evidence obtained was then assessed using the grading of recommendations, assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.
32 RCTs, involving 2566 women were finally included for analysis. The overall quality of the concluding evidence was generally rated as low or very low. Performance bias and blind bias were found to be the main risk of bias of the included studies. In comparison to no treatment, manual therapy demonstrated a significant increase in pain relief in short-term (n=191, MD=1.30, 95% CI: 0.242.37). The differences in the effects of manual therapy and the placebo on pain intensity may not be statistically significant (n=255, MD=0.10, 95% CI: -0.370.58). In contrast to NSAIDs, manual therapy exhibited superior pain alleviation (n=507, MD=3.01, 95% CI: 1.084.94) and a higher effective rate (n=1029, OR=4.87, 95% CI: 3.297.20). Importantly, no severe adverse events were reported across all studies, indicating a relatively safe profile for manual therapy.
Manual therapy presented promise in effectively relieving menstrual pain with minimal adverse events in short term, outperforming both no treatment and NSAIDs. However, this conclusion is tempered by the low quality of the included RCTs, highlighting the necessity for more robust trials to validate it.
本研究旨在评估手法治疗对原发性痛经(PD)女性缓解疼痛的有效性。
从在线数据库中检索了从创建到2023年7月所有关于手法治疗PD的随机对照试验(RCT)。对识别出的文献进行了全面的筛选过程,并使用RevMan 5.3精心提取和分析数据。随后,对纳入的研究进行了Cochrane质量评估和荟萃分析。然后使用推荐分级、评估、制定和评价(GRADE)方法对获得的证据进行评估。
最终纳入32项RCT,涉及2566名女性进行分析。结论性证据的总体质量通常被评为低或极低。发现表现偏倚和盲法偏倚是纳入研究的主要偏倚风险。与不治疗相比,手法治疗在短期内疼痛缓解有显著增加(n = 191,MD = 1.30,95%CI:0.242.37)。手法治疗与安慰剂对疼痛强度的影响差异可能无统计学意义(n = 255,MD = 0.10,95%CI:-0.370.58)。与非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)相比,手法治疗表现出更好的疼痛缓解效果(n = 507,MD = 3.01,95%CI:1.084.94)和更高的有效率(n = 1029,OR = 4.87,95%CI:3.297.20)。重要的是,所有研究均未报告严重不良事件,表明手法治疗的安全性相对较高。
手法治疗在短期内有望有效缓解痛经且不良事件最少,优于不治疗和NSAIDs。然而,这一结论因纳入的RCT质量较低而受到影响,凸显了进行更有力试验以验证该结论的必要性。