Wang Yaqi, Liu Lu, Wu Xiao, Wu Yisong, Qin Renjie, Wang Mingyu, Zhou Bei, Sun Jingjing, Song Yufan, Zhang Mingmin, Li Man, Yu Lingling
Institute of Integrated Traditional Chinese and Western Medicine, Tongji Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan, Hubei, People's Republic of China.
Department of Acupuncture and Moxibustion, Beijing Hospital of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Capital Medical University, Beijing Key Laboratory of Acupuncture Neuromodulation, Beijing, People's Republic of China.
J Pain Res. 2025 Aug 24;18:4307-4336. doi: 10.2147/JPR.S533585. eCollection 2025.
Meridian-based acupoint stimulation is increasingly used for primary dysmenorrhea (PD), yet its evidence remains inconsistent. This systematic review aims to evaluate efficacy and safety of both invasive and noninvasive acupoint stimulation for PD through analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
The PROSPERO registration number is CRD42024586857. PubMed, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Allied and Complementary Medicine Database (AMED), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Web of Science, Scopus, VIP Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), and Wanfang Database were searched up to May 20, 2024. Methodological quality was assessed using the revised Cochrane risk of bias, version 2 tool. Data were synthesized using random-effects models and presented with forest plots. The primary outcomes were assessed based on pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS) or effective rates, and safety measured by adverse reaction rates. The secondary outcomes included self-reported symptoms and quality of life, uterine hemodynamics, and serum prostaglandin contents.
A total of 22 eligible RCTs with 1955 participants (range 44 to 216) were included. Compared with no treatment or sham treatment, acupoint stimulation demonstrated moderate pain reduction (standardized mean difference [SMD] -2.96, 95% confidence interval [CI] -4.39 to -1.53). Compared with non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), acupoint stimulation showed both immediate effects (post-first-treatment SMD -2.85, 95% CI -4.06 to -1.64) and sustained benefits (3 cycles SMD -1.58, 95% CI -2.43 to -0.73; following 3 cycles SMD -3.74, 95% CI -5.57 to -1.90), particularly with invasive techniques. The incidence of adverse events did not differ significantly between groups (relative risk [RR] 0.94, 95% CI 0.26 to 3.33). The GRADE certainty of the evidence ranged from low to moderate, owing to considerable risk of bias and high heterogeneity.
Current evidence suggests that acupoint stimulation may reduce pain intensity in primary dysmenorrhea without increasing adverse reactions, particularly long-term.
基于经络的穴位刺激越来越多地用于原发性痛经(PD),但其证据仍不一致。本系统评价旨在通过分析随机对照试验(RCT)来评估侵入性和非侵入性穴位刺激治疗PD的疗效和安全性。
PROSPERO注册号为CRD42024586857。检索了截至2024年5月20日的PubMed、医学文摘数据库(Embase)、联合与补充医学数据库(AMED)、Cochrane对照试验中心注册库(CENTRAL)、科学网、Scopus、维普数据库、中国知网和万方数据库。使用修订后的Cochrane偏倚风险2工具评估方法学质量。数据采用随机效应模型进行合成,并以森林图呈现。主要结局基于使用视觉模拟量表(VAS)测量的疼痛强度或有效率进行评估,安全性通过不良反应率进行测量。次要结局包括自我报告的症状和生活质量、子宫血流动力学以及血清前列腺素含量。
共纳入22项符合条件的RCT,涉及1955名参与者(范围为44至216名)。与未治疗或假治疗相比,穴位刺激显示出疼痛有中度减轻(标准化均数差[SMD] -2.96,95%置信区间[CI] -4.39至-1.53)。与非甾体抗炎药(NSAIDs)相比,穴位刺激显示出即时效果(首次治疗后SMD -2.85,95% CI -4.06至-1.64)和持续益处(3个周期SMD -1.58,95% CI -2.43至-0.73;3个周期后SMD -3.74,95% CI -5.57至-1.90),尤其是采用侵入性技术时。各组不良事件的发生率无显著差异(相对危险度[RR] 0.94,95% CI 0.26至3.33)。由于存在相当大的偏倚风险和高度异质性,证据的GRADE确定性为低到中度。
目前的证据表明,穴位刺激可能减轻原发性痛经的疼痛强度,且不会增加不良反应,尤其是长期来看。