Lee Tony Kwok Wing, Chang Jeremy R, Hao Dongfang, Fu Siu-Ngor, Wong Arnold Yu Lok
Department of Rehabilitation Science, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong SAR, China.
School of Chinese Medicine, LKS Faculty of Medicine, The University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong SAR, China.
J Integr Complement Med. 2025 Jan;31(1):25-35. doi: 10.1089/jicm.2023.0630. Epub 2024 Jul 17.
To assess the effectiveness of auricular acupressure (AA) in managing pain and disability in individuals with chronic musculoskeletal pain. A systematic search on six electronic databases was performed from their inception to May 7, 2023, to identified relevant randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Two independent reviewers screened the abstracts and full texts, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using RoB 2. The primary outcomes were pain intensity and disability. The secondary outcomes were pain pressure thresholds, pain catastrophizing level, and fear avoidance beliefs. A random-effects model was used for meta-analyses. The certainty of evidence was evaluated using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation. Sensitivity analyses were conducted after removing low-quality papers. Of 633 identified records, six studies involving 496 participants were included. All included studies compared the effectiveness of AA with sham controls in treating various chronic musculoskeletal pain. Four meta-analyses were conducted to compare the effectiveness of AA with sham controls. Low-quality evidence supported that AA had a large effect size on postintervention subjective pain reduction (standardized mean difference [SMD] = -0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI]: -1.36 to -0.54; p = 0.00; = 52.61%); moderate-quality evidence substantiated that AA had a large effect size on enhancing postintervention pressure pain threshold (SMD = -0.55; 95% CI: -0.88 to -0.23; = 0.00; = 0%). There was low-quality evidence that AA had a large effect on reducing postintervention disability (SMD = -0.68; 95% CI: -1.24 to -0.12; = 0.02; = 51.33%). Our sensitivity analysis reaffirmed the same conclusion regarding pain reduction immediately after the intervention. Fourteen participants reported minimal adverse events, including soreness, tenderness, irritation, and redness, which disappeared within 1-7 days. Our systematic review revealed that AA significantly improved pain, pressure pain thresholds, and disability in individuals with various chronic musculoskeletal pain conditions immediately post-treatment compared with sham treatment. Given the paucity of studies and inconsistent protocols, future RCTs are warranted to evaluate the effectiveness of AA in people with chronic musculoskeletal pain at a longer follow-up with detailed protocols, which allows researchers and clinicians to optimize AA intervention. : AA has immediate post-treatment benefits for chronic musculoskeletal pain, whereas its effects at the 1- or 6-month follow-up remain uncertain.
评估耳穴按压(AA)对慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者疼痛及功能障碍的管理效果。对六个电子数据库进行了从建库至2023年5月7日的系统检索,以识别相关随机对照试验(RCT)。两名独立评审员筛选摘要和全文、提取数据并使用RoB 2评估偏倚风险。主要结局为疼痛强度和功能障碍。次要结局为疼痛压力阈值、疼痛灾难化水平和恐惧回避信念。采用随机效应模型进行荟萃分析。使用推荐分级评估、制定和评价系统对证据的确定性进行评估。在剔除低质量论文后进行敏感性分析。在识别出的633条记录中,纳入了6项研究,涉及496名参与者。所有纳入研究均比较了AA与假对照在治疗各种慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛方面的有效性。进行了四项荟萃分析以比较AA与假对照的有效性。低质量证据支持AA对干预后主观疼痛减轻有较大效应量(标准化均数差[SMD]= -0.95;95%置信区间[CI]:-1.36至-0.54;p = 0.00;I² = 52.61%);中等质量证据证实AA对提高干预后压力疼痛阈值有较大效应量(SMD = -0.55;95% CI:-0.88至-0.23;I² = 0.00;p = 0%)。有低质量证据表明AA对降低干预后功能障碍有较大影响(SMD = -0.68;95% CI:-1.24至-0.12;I² = 0.02;p = 51.33%)。我们的敏感性分析再次证实了干预后立即减轻疼痛方面的相同结论。14名参与者报告了轻微不良事件,包括酸痛、压痛、刺激和发红,这些在1 - 7天内消失。我们的系统评价显示,与假治疗相比,AA在治疗后立即显著改善了各种慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的疼痛、压力疼痛阈值和功能障碍。鉴于研究较少且方案不一致,未来有必要进行RCT,以在更长随访期并采用详细方案评估AA对慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛患者的有效性,这将使研究人员和临床医生能够优化AA干预。:AA对慢性肌肉骨骼疼痛有治疗后即刻益处,而其在1个月或6个月随访时的效果仍不确定。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-4-19
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-8-29
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024-8-15
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017-1-12
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2023-7-13
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021-7-19
Health Technol Assess. 2024-10
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018-4-13