Chen Shu-Cheng, Ruan Jia-Yin, Zhang Bohan, Pang Lok-Yi, Zhong Linda, Lin Shuang-Lan, Wong Ka-Po, Ouyang Hui-Xi, Yeung Wing-Fai, Fu Qin-Wei, Chen Bo-Qian
School of Nursing, Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Kowloon, Hong Kong SAR, China.
School of Biological Sciences, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore.
Front Med (Lausanne). 2024 Sep 5;11:1453609. doi: 10.3389/fmed.2024.1453609. eCollection 2024.
To determine the comparative effects and safety of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) interventions based on meridian theory for pain relief in patients with primary dysmenorrhea (PD).
This is a systematic review with network meta-analysis. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing meridian-based TCM interventions with waitlist, placebo, western medicine, and conventional therapies for PD pain. A SUCRA was used to estimate the probability ranking for the effects of interventions.
57 RCTs involving 3,903 participants and 15interventions were included. Thirty-two RCTs were rated as low risk of bias. A network diagram was drawn with 105 pairs of comparisons. Compared with NSAIDs and waitlist, significantly better effects were found in acupressure [SMD = -1.51, 95%CI (-2.91, -0.12)/SMD = -2.31, 95%CI (-4.61, -0.02)], warm needling [SMD = -1.43, 95%CI (-2.68, -0.18)/SMD = -2.23, 95%CI (-4.43, -0.03)], moxibustion [SMD = -1.21, 95%CI (-1.85, -0.57)/SMD = -2.10, 95%CI (-3.95, -0.07)], and acupuncture [SMD = -1.09, 95%CI (-1.62, -0.55)/SMD = -1.89, 95%CI (-3.67, -0.11)]. No adverse events were detected.
For PD pain, the effects of acupressure, acupuncture, warm needling, and moxibustion were superior to those of NSAIDs and waitlist. Oral contraceptive pill, electro-acupuncture, acupressure, and warm needling demonstrated higher probabilities of being better interventions. More high-quality clinical trials are needed to provide more robust evidence of this network.
PROSPERO CRD42022373312.
确定基于经络理论的中医干预措施对原发性痛经(PD)患者疼痛缓解的比较效果和安全性。
这是一项采用网状Meta分析的系统评价。纳入比较基于经络的中医干预措施与等待列表、安慰剂、西药及常规疗法治疗PD疼痛的随机对照试验(RCT)。使用累积排序曲线下面积(SUCRA)估计干预措施效果的概率排名。
纳入了57项RCT,涉及3903名参与者和15种干预措施。32项RCT被评为低偏倚风险。绘制了包含105对比较的网络图。与非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)和等待列表相比,指压[标准化均数差(SMD)=-1.51,95%置信区间(CI)(-2.91,-0.12)/SMD=-2.31,95%CI(-4.61,-0.02)]、温针[SMD=-1.43,95%CI(-2.68,-0.18)/SMD=-2.23,95%CI(-4.43,-0.03)]、艾灸[SMD=-1.21,95%CI(-1.85,-0.57)/SMD=-2.10,95%CI(-3.95,-0.07)]和针刺[SMD=-1.09,95%CI(-1.62,-0.55)/SMD=-1.89,95%CI(-3.67,-0.11)]的效果明显更好。未检测到不良事件。
对于PD疼痛,指压、针刺、温针和艾灸的效果优于NSAIDs和等待列表。口服避孕药、电针、指压和温针显示出更有可能是较好的干预措施。需要更多高质量的临床试验来为该网络提供更有力的证据。
PROSPERO CRD42022373312。