首页> 外文期刊>Scientific reports. >Network Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Acupuncture, Alpha-blockers and Antibiotics on Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome
【24h】

Network Meta-Analysis of the Efficacy of Acupuncture, Alpha-blockers and Antibiotics on Chronic Prostatitis/Chronic Pelvic Pain Syndrome

机译:网络荟萃分析针灸,α-嵌体和抗生素对慢性前列腺炎/慢性骨盆疼痛综合征的疗效

获取原文
           

摘要

Alpha-blockers and antibiotics are most commonly used to treat chronic prostatitis/chronic pelvic pain syndrome (CP/CPPS) in clinical practice. Currently, increasing evidence also suggests acupuncture as an effective strategy. This network meta-analysis intended to assess the comparative efficacy and safety of acupuncture, alpha-blockers and antibiotics for CP/CPPS. Twelve trials involving 1203 participants were included. Based on decreases in the National Institutes of Health Chronic Prostatitis Symptom Index (NIH-CPSI) score, a network meta-analysis indicated that electro-acupuncture (standard mean difference [SMD]: 4.29; 95% credible interval [CrI], 1.96-6.65), acupuncture (SMD: 3.69; 95% CrI, 0.27-7.17), alpha-blockers (SMD: 1.85; 95% CrI, 1.07-2.64), antibiotics (SMD: 2.66; 95% CrI, 1.57-3.76), and dual therapy (SMD: 3.20; 95% CrI, 1.95-4.42) are superior to placebo in decreasing this score. Additionally, electro-acupuncture (SMD: 2.44; 95% CrI, 0.08-4.83) and dual therapy (SMD: 1.35; 95% CrI, 0.07-2.62) were more effective than alpha-blockers in decreasing the total NIH-CPSI total score. Other network meta-analyses did not show significant differences between interventions other placebo. The incidence of adverse events of acupuncture was relatively rare (5.4%) compared with placebo (17.1%), alpha-blockers (24.9%), antibiotics (31%) and dual therapy (48.6%). Overall, rank tests and safety analyses indicate that electro-acupuncture/acupuncture may be recommended for the treatment of CP/CPPS.
机译:α-嵌体和抗生素最常用于治疗临床实践中的慢性前列腺炎/慢性盆腔疼痛综合征(CP / CPP)。目前,越来越多的证据还提出针灸作为有效的策略。该网络间分析旨在评估针灸,α-嵌体和CP / CPP的抗生素的比较疗效和安全性。包括12名涉及1203名参与者的12项试验。基于国家慢性前列腺炎症症症状指数(NIH-CPSI)评分的降低,网络元分析表明,电针(标准平均差异[SMD]:4.29; 95%可靠间隔[CRI],1.96- 6.65),针灸(SMD:3.69; 95%CRI,0.27-7.17),α-嵌体(SMD:1.85; 95%CRI,1.07-2.64),抗生素(SMD:2.66; 95%CRI,1.57-3.76),和双重疗法(SMD:3.20; 95%CRI,1.95-4.42)在降低此评分时优于安慰剂。另外,电针(SMD:2.44; 95%CRI,0.08-4.83)和双重治疗(SMD:1.35; 95%CRI,0.07-2.62)比α-Delplo-obla-Delplo-oh-CPSI总分更有效。其他网络元分析在其他安慰剂的干预之间没有显示出显着差异。与安慰剂(17.1%),α-嵌体(24.9%),抗生素(31%)和双重治疗(48.6%)相比,针灸的不良事件发生率相对罕见(5.4%)。总体而言,等级试验和安全分析表明,可以建议电针/针灸治疗CP / CPPS。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号