Electroacupuncture at Houxi(SI 3) for acute lumbar sprain: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials  

电针后溪穴治疗急性腰扭伤临床随机对照试验Meta分析(英文)

作　　者：王滢 孙懿君 吴耀持 张峻峰 张奕奕 

机构地区：[1]Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital [2]Hongqiao Community Health Service Center, Changning District, Shanghai

出　　处：《Journal of Acupuncture and Tuina Science》2015年第5期332-338,共7页针灸推拿医学（英文版）

基　　金：supported by Lu's Acupuncture Inheritance Study of Shanghai Schools of Traditional Chinese Medicine;Project of Shanghai Jiao Tong University Affiliated Sixth People's Hospital~~

摘　　要：Objective： To assess the efficacy and safety of electroacupuncture （EA） at Houxi （SI 3） in treating acute lumbar sprain. Methods： Randomized controlled trials （RCTs） involving EA at Houxi （SI 3） for acute lumbar sprain were retrieved from PubMed （1966-2014）, EMBASE （1980-2014）, Cochrane Library （Issue 1, 2014）, CO, VIP Database （1989-2014）, Wanfang Digital Journal （1998-2014）, the Chinese Biological Medical Literature Database （CBM, 1978-2014）, and China National Knowledge Internet （CNKI, 1979-2014）. The collection of data also adopted hand-search of the relevant journals from the Library of Shanghai Jiao Tong University. All of the data were first evaluated and extracted by two reviewers independently with a specially designed form. Then, the available data were analyzed by the Cochrane Collaboration＇s RevMan 5.2.0 software. Results： A total of 6 trials involving 1 288 patients were eligible. Meta-analysis showed that the total effectiveness rate in the EA group was significantly different when compared with Nimesulide [RR----1.33; 95% CI （1.19 to 1.49）] and Mobic [RR= 1.08; 95% Cl （1.03 to 1.14）], but similar to that of acupuncture at Yaotongdian （EX-UE 7） [RR=71.09; 95% Cl （1.00 to 1.19）] and Diclofenac Sodium [RR----1.08; （95% CI 0.96 to 1.21）]. The recovery rate in the EA group was significantly different when compared with Mobic [RR----1.67; （95% CI 1.45 to 1.92）] and Nimesulid [RR：1.37; （95% Cl 1.15 to 1.62）], but similar to that of acupuncture at Yaotongdian [（RR=1.35; 95% CI 0.99 to 1.84）] and Diclofenac Sodium [（RR=I.19; 95% Cl 0.88 to 1.61）]. Conclusion： Up to the search date, there are few high quality RCTs to evaluate the clinical efficacy of EA at Houxi （SI 3） for acute lumbar sprain, especially studies in English. Yet EA at Houxi （SI 3） still appeared to be an efficacious method for acute lumbar sprain, despite several inherent defects of the included studies. Further large scale trials are required 目的:评价电针后溪穴治疗急性腰扭伤的疗效和安全性。方法:收集电针后溪穴治疗急性腰扭伤临床随机对照试验(R andomized controlled trial,RCT)。计算机检索P ub Med(1966-2014),EMBASE(1980-2014),Cochrane Library(2014年第1期),重庆维普数据库(1989-2014),万方数据库(1998-2014),中国生物医学文献数据库(1978-2014)和中国期刊全文数据库(1979-2014)。同时采用手工检索上海交通大学图书馆收录期刊收集相关的数据。所有收集的数据首先由两名研究者分别对每个纳入试验进行偏倚风险和质量评估,再使用R ev Man 5.2.0软件进行Meta分析。结果:共纳入6个研究,合计1288例患者。M eta分析结果显示电针后溪穴组在总有效率上优于尼美舒利药物组[RR=1.33;95%CI(1.19-1.49)]和莫比可药物组[RR=1.08;95%CI(1.03-1.14)],但与针刺腰痛点组[RR=1.09;95%CI(1.00-1.19)]和双氯芬酸钠组[RR=1.08;95%CI(0.96-1.21)]疗效比较差异无统计学意义。而在治愈率方面,电针后溪穴组优于莫比可组[RR=1.67;95%CI(1.45-1.92)]和尼美舒利组[RR=1.37;95%CI(1.15-1.62)],与针刺腰痛点组[RR=1.35;95%CI(0.99-1.84)]和双氯芬酸钠药物组[(RR=1.19;95%CI(0.88-1.61)]疗效差异无统计学意义。结论:截止至检索结束,几乎没有收集到评价电针后溪穴治疗急性腰扭伤临床疗效的大样本高质量的R CT文献,且大部分为中文文献。忽略其在临床试验中存在的固有的缺点,电针后溪穴仍然作为一个有效且具有安全性的辅助治疗方法用于治疗急性腰扭伤,但仍需更多的大样本R CT进行验证其在治疗急性腰扭伤的疗效。

关 键 词：Acupuncture Therapy ELECTROACUPUNCTURE Low Back Pain Sprain and Strains Point  Houxi （Sl 3） META-ANALYSIS 

分 类 号：R246.2[医药卫生—针灸推拿学]