Ge Ruisi, Liu Rihe, He Mengru, Wu Jiawei, Zhang Feng, Huang Chang
School of Acupuncture-Moxibustion and Tuina, Beijing University of Chinese Medicine, Beijing, China.
Front Neurol. 2024 Dec 20;15:1500709. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2024.1500709. eCollection 2024.
To systematically evaluate the clinical efficacy of acupuncture in the treatment of diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN).
Randomized controlled trial (RCT) of acupuncture for diabetic peripheral neuropathy in Chinese Knowledge Network (CNKI), Wanfang database, VIP database (VIP), PubMed, web of science, cochrane library, AMED and CINAHL were searched by computer since the establishment of the database. All publications in English and Chinese as of 30 December 2023 will be searched, without country or article type restrictions. Study selection, data extraction and evaluation were performed independently by two researchers. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane risk assessment tool, and Meta-analysis was performed using RevMan5.3 software.
DPN has good effective rate in acupuncture than conventional western medicine alone. However, the above conclusions need to be verified by larger samples and higher quality randomized controlled trials. ① Acupuncture treated DPN more effective than drug (RR = 1.38, 95%CI = 1.26 ~ 1.51, Z = 6.93, < 0.00001), DPN of patients with acupuncture plus drug (RR = 1.38, 95%CI = 1.05 ~ 1.82, Z = 2.28, = 0.02), There was no significant difference between acupuncture and usual care (RR = 2.41, 95%CI = 0.70 ~ 8.29, Z = 1.39, = 0.16); ② Acupuncture treatment is superior to drug group in improving the SNCV of the median nerve (MD = 1.65, 95%CI = 0.74 ~ 2.57,Z = 3.55, = 0.0004), sham needle treatment (MD = 0.50, 95%CI = 0.17 ~ 0.83, Z = 2.95, = 0.003), Acupuncture plus drug was superior to drug in improving the SNCV of the median nerve (MD = 3.29, 95%CI = 2.55 ~ 4.03, Z = 8.70, < 0.00001); ③ Acupuncture treatment is superior to drug group in improving the MNCV of the median nerve (MD = 2.24, 95%CI = 0.50 ~ 3.98, Z = 2.52, = 0.01), and sham needle treatment (MD = 0.20, 95%CI = -0.03 ~ 0.43, Z = 1.69, = 0.09), Acupuncture plus drug was superior to drug group in improving the MNCV of the median nerve (MD = 2.63, 95%CI = 1.83 ~ 3.42, Z = 6.46, < 0.00001); ④ Acupuncture is better to drug group in improving SNCV of common peroneal nerve (MD = 1.67, 95%CI = 0.21 ~ 3.13, Z = 2.24, = 0.02); ⑤ Acupuncture treatment is superior to drug group in improving the MNCV of the common peroneal nerve (MD = 2.03, 95%CI = 1.37 ~ 0.69, Z = 6.04, < 0.00001), Acupuncture plus drug outperformed MNCV in improving the common peroneal nerve (MD = 4.23, 95%CI = -0.16 ~ 8.62, Z = 1, 89, = 0.06); ⑥ Acupuncture treatment is superior to drug group in improving the SNCV of the tibial nerve (MD = 1.58, 95%CI = 0.85 ~ 2.30, Z = 4.26, < 0.0001); ⑦ There was no significant difference between acupuncture treatment and drug group in improving the MNCV of the tibial nerve (MD =1.55, 95%CI = -0.59 ~ 3.68, Z = 1.42, = 0.16); ⑧ Acupuncture plus drug is better than medication in reducing VAS (MD = -2.35, 95%CI = -3.78 ~ -0.93, Z = 3.23, = 0.001), Acupuncture plus usual care is superior to usual caret (MD = -28.70, 95%CI = -39.50 ~ 17.90, Z = 5.21, < 0.00001), There was no significant difference between acupuncture and sham needle treatment (MD = -4.00, 95%CI = -18.32 ~ 10.32, Z = 0.55, = 0.58).
Compared with drug, usual care, and sham AT, AT has a better response rate and more favorable effect in improving nerve conduction velocity. The combination of AT and drug demonstrates a more significant improvement compared to drug alone. The combination of AT and usual care improves DPN symptoms more effectively than usual care. However, the above conclusions need to be verified by larger samples and higher quality randomized controlled trials.
[https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/], identifier [CRD42023451575].
系统评价针刺治疗糖尿病周围神经病变(DPN)的临床疗效。
通过计算机检索中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据库、维普数据库(VIP)、PubMed、Web of Science、Cochrane图书馆、AMED和CINAHL中关于针刺治疗糖尿病周围神经病变的随机对照试验(RCT),检索时间从各数据库建库至2023年12月31日,不限国家和文献类型。由两名研究人员独立进行文献筛选、数据提取和评价。采用Cochrane风险评估工具评估偏倚风险,使用RevMan5.3软件进行Meta分析。
针刺治疗DPN的有效率优于单纯西医常规治疗。然而,上述结论需要通过更大样本量和更高质量的随机对照试验进行验证。①针刺治疗DPN的疗效优于药物治疗(RR = 1.38,95%CI = 1.26~1.51,Z = 6.93,P < 0.00001),针刺联合药物治疗DPN的疗效优于单纯药物治疗(RR = 1.38,95%CI = 1.05~1.82,Z = 2.28,P = 0.02),针刺与常规护理之间无显著差异(RR = 2.41,95%CI = 0.70~8.29,Z = 1.39,P = 0.16);②针刺治疗在改善正中神经感觉神经传导速度(SNCV)方面优于药物组(MD = 1.65,95%CI = 0.74~2.57,Z = 3.55,P = 0.0004),优于假针刺治疗(MD = 0.50,95%CI = 0.17~0.83,Z = 2.95,P = 0.003),针刺联合药物治疗在改善正中神经SNCV方面优于单纯药物治疗(MD = 3.29,95%CI = 2.55~4.03,Z = 8.70,P < 0.00001);③针刺治疗在改善正中神经运动神经传导速度(MNCV)方面优于药物组(MD = 2.24,95%CI = 0.50~3.98,Z = 2.52,P = 0.01),优于假针刺治疗(MD = 0.20,95%CI = -0.03~0.43,Z = 1.69,P = 0.09),针刺联合药物治疗在改善正中神经MNCV方面优于单纯药物治疗(MD = 2.63,95%CI = 1.83~3.42,Z = 6.46,P < 0.00001);④针刺治疗在改善腓总神经SNCV方面优于药物组(MD = 1.67,95%CI = 0.21~3.13,Z = 2.24,P = 0.02);⑤针刺治疗在改善腓总神经MNCV方面优于药物组(MD = 2.03,95%CI = 1.37~0.69,Z = 6.04,P < 0.00001),针刺联合药物治疗在改善腓总神经MNCV方面优于单纯药物治疗(MD = 4.23,95%CI = -0.16~8.62,Z = 1.89,P = 0.06);⑥针刺治疗在改善胫神经SNCV方面优于药物组(MD = 1.58,95%CI = 0.85~2.30,Z = 4.26,P < 0.0001);⑦针刺治疗与药物组在改善胫神经MNCV方面无显著差异(MD = 1.55,95%CI = -0.59~3.68,Z = 1.42,P = 0.16);⑧针刺联合药物治疗在降低视觉模拟评分(VAS)方面优于单纯药物治疗(MD = -2.35,95%CI = -3.78~-0.93,Z = 3.23,P = 0.001),针刺联合常规护理在改善DPN症状方面优于常规护理(MD = -28.70,95%CI = -39.50~-17.90,Z = 5.21,P < 0.00001),针刺与假针刺治疗之间无显著差异(MD = -4.00,95%CI = -18.32~10.32,Z = 0.55,P = 0.58)。
与药物、常规护理和假针刺相比,针刺治疗DPN的有效率更高,在改善神经传导速度方面效果更优。针刺联合药物治疗较单纯药物治疗有更显著的改善。针刺联合常规护理比常规护理更有效地改善DPN症状。然而,上述结论需要通过更大样本量和更高质量的随机对照试验进行验证。