首页> 外文期刊>Pain research & management: the journal of the Canadian Pain Society = journal de la socie?te? canadienne pour le traitement de la douleur >The Effectiveness and Safety of Moxibustion for Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials
【24h】

The Effectiveness and Safety of Moxibustion for Treating Knee Osteoarthritis: A PRISMA Compliant Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

机译:艾灸治疗膝关节骨关节炎的有效性和安全性:符合普遍的系统审查和随机对照试验的荟萃分析

获取原文
           

摘要

Background . Knee osteoarthritis (KOA) seriously affects people’s life. Therefore, it has already become a worldwide health concern. Moxibustion has a significant clinical effect on KOA. This systematic review and meta-analysis is performed to renew previous studies and strictly evaluate the quality of RCT and thus test the effect and safety of moxibustion for KOA. Objective . To evaluate the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion treatment for alleviating pain and improving lower limb function for patients with KOA. Materials and Methods . CNKI (1979~2019), CBM (1979~2019), VIP (1989~2019), WF (1998~2019), PubMed (1966~2019), Embase (1980~2019), Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (1900~2019) were all retrieved by a computer from their inception to June 02, 2019, replenished by manual retrieval of relevant bibliographies. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included if moxibustion was compared to western medicine or negative control (placebo moxibustion or no treatment or UC) for treating KOA. The primary outcomes were the total effect and the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index (WOMAC scale). The secondary outcomes include VAS, Symptom score, Lysholm score, and Lequesne score. RCTs were collected, and the quality of evidence was evaluated by using the Jadad scale and Cochrane risk assessment tools. We used RevMan5.3.0 software for meta-analysis. Results . A total of 39 RCTs were included, including 3293 patients. In the assessment of the quality, the evidence differs from low to high based on the Cochrane Bias Evaluation Tools and Jadad scale. Fourteen trials were of high quality, ten were of moderate quality, and 15 were of low quality. Therefore, the quality of the included studies was moderate. In this study, there were 66.67% of the literature, and only 17.95% of the literature correctly reported randomized grouping and allocation of hidden information, respectively. In adverse reactions, only 13 trials included were reported in the study. The main adverse reactions of moxibustion are burns and blisters, whereas the western medicine group was in epigastric discomfort. As for the total effective rate, the meta-analysis of 27 RCTs showed a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (RR?=?1.20, 95% CI?=?1.16 to 1.25, I sup2/sup =?45%, P = 0.007 ); as for the WOMAC scale, the subgroup meta-analysis of 13 trials showed that there was a statistically significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD?=??11.08, 95% CI?=??11.72 to ?10.44, I sup2/sup =?98%, P 0.00001 ) and 2 trials on moxibustion VS negative control (MD?=??8.38, 95% CI?=??12.69 to ?4.06, I sup2/sup =?0%, P = 0.77 ); as for the VAS score, the meta-analysis of 6 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD?=??2.12, 95% CI?=??2.30 to ?1.93, I sup2/sup =?98%, P 0.00001 ); as for the symptom score, the meta-analysis of 7 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD?=??0.81, 95% CI?=??1.24 to ?0.37, I sup2/sup =?50%, P = 0.06 ); as for the Lysholm score, the meta-analysis of 5 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD?=?7.61, 95% CI?=?6.04 to 9.17, I sup2/sup =?95%, P 0.00001 ); and as for the Lequesne score, the meta-analysis of 3 trials showed that there was a significant effect of moxibustion VS western medicine (MD?=?3.29, 95% CI?=?2.93 to 3.65, I sup2/sup =?99%, P 0.00001 ). Conclusion . Moxibustion treatment for KOA is more effective than the positive control (western medicine) or negative control (placebo moxibustion or no treatment or UC), and there were fewer adverse reactions to moxibustion. Due to the universally low quality of the eligible trials, it still needs further large-scale and high-quality randomized controlled trials to verify the effectiveness and safety of moxibustion in the treatment of KOA.
机译:背景 。膝关节骨关节炎(KOA)严重影响人们的生活。因此,它已经成为全球健康问题。艾灸对KOA具有显着的临床影响。该系统审查和荟萃分析进行了更新以前的研究,并严格评估RCT的质量,从而测试艾灸对KOA的效果和安全性。客观的 。评价艾灸治疗的有效性和安全性,以减轻痛苦,改善KOA患者的下肢功能。材料和方法 。 CNKI(1979〜2019),CBM(1979〜2019),VIP(1989〜2019),WF(1998〜2019),PubMed(1966〜2019),Embase(1980〜2019),Cochrane图书馆和科学网站( 1900〜2019年)通过从2019年6月02日开始的计算机从2002年6月开始检索,通过手动检索相关参考书目。如果将艾灸与西药或阴性对照(安慰剂艾灸或没有治疗或UC)进行治疗KOA,则包括随机对照试验(RCTS)。主要结果是总效应和西部的安大略省和麦克马斯特大学骨关节炎指数(Womac规模)。二次结果包括VAS,症状得分,Lysholm评分和达斯霍尔姆得分。收集RCTS,通过使用JADAD规模和Cochrane风险评估工具来评估证据质量。我们使用Revman5.3.0软件进行Meta-Analysis。结果 。共用了39个RCT,其中包括3293名患者。在评估质量的情况下,基于Cochrane偏见评估工具和JADAD规模,证据与低到高。十四次试验质量高,质量较高,9种质量低。因此,所附研究的质量中等。在本研究中,有66.67%的文献,分别只报告了7.95%的文献,分别正确地报告了随机分组和分配隐藏信息。在不良反应中,研究中仅报告了13项试验。艾灸的主要不良反应是烧伤和水疱,而西医结合在颠膜上的不适。至于总有效率,27个RCT的荟萃分析表现出艾灸Vs西药的显着效果(RR?=?1.20,95%CI?=?1.16至1.25,I 2 = ?45%,p = 0.007);至于Womac规模,13项试验的亚组荟萃分析表明,艾灸Vs西药有统计学显着的影响(MD?= ?? 11.08,95%CI?= ?? 11.72至10.44,我 2 =?98%,p 0.00001)和2对艾灸的试验与阴性对照(MD?= ?? 8.38,95%ci?= ?? 12.69至?4.06,i 2 =?0%,p = 0.77);至于VAS评分,6种试验的荟萃分析表明,艾灸患有艾灸Vs西药(MD?= = = =Δ=Δ= ?? 2.30至?1.93,I 2 = = 98%,p 0.00001);至于症状评分,7种试验的荟萃分析表明,艾灸Vs西药有显着影响(MD?= ?? 0.81,95%CI?= ?? 1.24至0.37,我 2 =?50%,p = 0.06);至于Lysholm评分,5种试验的Meta分析表明,艾灸Vs Western医学(MD?= 7.61,95%CI?=α.6.04至9.17,I 2 =?95%,p 0.00001);至于1季度评分,3种试验的荟萃分析表明,艾灸患有艾灸效应效果效果(MD?= 3.29,95%CI?=?2.93至3.65,I 2 =?99%,p 0.00001)。结论 。 KOA的艾灸治疗比阳性对照(西医)或阴性对照(安慰剂艾灸或治疗或UC)更有效,并且对艾灸的不良反应较少。由于符合条件的符合条件的试验的普遍性,它仍然需要进一步的大规模和高质量的随机对照试验,以验证艾灸治疗KOA的艾灸的有效性和安全性。

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