Comparison of the efficacy of acupoint stimulation therapy in the treatment of pain in musculoskeletal diseases: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.

IF 1.4 4区 医学 Q3 ORTHOPEDICS
Ziwei Liu, Zedong Cheng, Kaixuan Zhang, Xingxing Lin, Yu Fu, Leichao Wang, Qiang Zhang, Feng Zhang, Xi Wu, Baoqiang Dong
{"title":"Comparison of the efficacy of acupoint stimulation therapy in the treatment of pain in musculoskeletal diseases: A network meta-analysis based on randomized controlled trials.","authors":"Ziwei Liu, Zedong Cheng, Kaixuan Zhang, Xingxing Lin, Yu Fu, Leichao Wang, Qiang Zhang, Feng Zhang, Xi Wu, Baoqiang Dong","doi":"10.1177/10538127251358729","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>BackgroundOrthopedic patients often present with significant pain symptoms, which can impact both the physical and mental well-being of patients, emerging as a significant concern. Given its safety, effectiveness, and absence of side effects, acupoint therapy is being increasingly utilized in the pain management of orthopedic patients. This study conducted a network meta-analysis to compare analgesic efficacy, safety, and effectiveness of acupuncture (AP), electroacupuncture (EA), moxibustion, and acupressure, so as to provide a reference for the clinical application of acupoint therapies in managing orthopedic pain.MethodsEight databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP, were searched for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of AP, EA, moxibustion, and acupressure on orthopedic pain. The quality of the included documents was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and graphs regarding the risk of bias and network meta-analysis were drawn by Revman 5.2, Stata 18.0 and R software (v4.3.2). Intervention ranking probabilities were quantified using SUCRA values derived from a Bayesian random-effects model.Results1) For decreasing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores in patients with orthopedic pain, moxibustion therapy was identified as the optimal intervention (SUCRA=94.84%); 2) For decreasing VAS scores in patients with orthopedic pain undergoing surgical intervention, AP therapy was identified as the optimal intervention (SUCRA=76.99%); 3) For decreasing VAS scores in patients with orthopedic pain not undergoing surgical intervention, moxibustion therapy was identified as the optimal intervention (SUCRA=90.26%); 4) AP therapy (SUCRA=83.73%) demonstrated the most favorable safety profile; 5) Acupressure therapy (SUCRA=77.93%) was identified as the most effective therapeutic method.ConclusionIt is recommended to select differentiated acupoint therapies tailored to the type of orthopedic pain. Specifically, post-operative patients with orthopedic pain should prioritize AP, while moxibustion is advised for non-surgical patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":15129,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","volume":" ","pages":"10538127251358729"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10538127251358729","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ORTHOPEDICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

BackgroundOrthopedic patients often present with significant pain symptoms, which can impact both the physical and mental well-being of patients, emerging as a significant concern. Given its safety, effectiveness, and absence of side effects, acupoint therapy is being increasingly utilized in the pain management of orthopedic patients. This study conducted a network meta-analysis to compare analgesic efficacy, safety, and effectiveness of acupuncture (AP), electroacupuncture (EA), moxibustion, and acupressure, so as to provide a reference for the clinical application of acupoint therapies in managing orthopedic pain.MethodsEight databases, including PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, CNKI, Wanfang Data, and VIP, were searched for clinical randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating the effects of AP, EA, moxibustion, and acupressure on orthopedic pain. The quality of the included documents was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool, and graphs regarding the risk of bias and network meta-analysis were drawn by Revman 5.2, Stata 18.0 and R software (v4.3.2). Intervention ranking probabilities were quantified using SUCRA values derived from a Bayesian random-effects model.Results1) For decreasing Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) scores in patients with orthopedic pain, moxibustion therapy was identified as the optimal intervention (SUCRA=94.84%); 2) For decreasing VAS scores in patients with orthopedic pain undergoing surgical intervention, AP therapy was identified as the optimal intervention (SUCRA=76.99%); 3) For decreasing VAS scores in patients with orthopedic pain not undergoing surgical intervention, moxibustion therapy was identified as the optimal intervention (SUCRA=90.26%); 4) AP therapy (SUCRA=83.73%) demonstrated the most favorable safety profile; 5) Acupressure therapy (SUCRA=77.93%) was identified as the most effective therapeutic method.ConclusionIt is recommended to select differentiated acupoint therapies tailored to the type of orthopedic pain. Specifically, post-operative patients with orthopedic pain should prioritize AP, while moxibustion is advised for non-surgical patients.

穴位刺激疗法治疗肌肉骨骼疾病疼痛的疗效比较:基于随机对照试验的网络meta分析
骨科患者经常出现明显的疼痛症状,这可能会影响患者的身心健康,成为一个值得关注的问题。鉴于其安全性、有效性和无副作用,穴位疗法越来越多地用于骨科患者的疼痛管理。本研究通过网络meta分析,比较针刺(AP)、电针(EA)、艾灸和穴位按压的镇痛疗效、安全性和有效性,为穴位疗法在骨科疼痛治疗中的临床应用提供参考。方法检索PubMed、Embase、Cochrane Library、Web of Science、中国知网(CNKI)、万方数据(Wanfang Data)和VIP等8个数据库,检索AP、EA、艾灸和指压对骨科疼痛影响的临床随机对照试验(RCTs)。采用Cochrane偏倚风险工具评估纳入文献的质量,并采用Revman 5.2、Stata 18.0和R软件(v4.3.2)绘制偏倚风险图和网络meta分析图。采用贝叶斯随机效应模型的SUCRA值量化干预排序概率。结果1)对于降低骨科疼痛患者视觉模拟量表(VAS)评分,艾灸治疗为最佳干预(SUCRA=94.84%);2)骨科疼痛患者手术干预后VAS评分下降,AP治疗为最佳干预(supra =76.99%);3)对于未行手术干预的骨科疼痛患者VAS评分下降,艾灸治疗为最佳干预(SUCRA=90.26%);4) AP治疗(SUCRA=83.73%)表现出最有利的安全性;5)穴位按压疗法(supra =77.93%)是最有效的治疗方法。结论针对骨科疼痛的不同类型,建议选择不同的穴位疗法。具体来说,术后出现骨科疼痛的患者应优先采用AP治疗,而非手术患者建议采用艾灸治疗。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
194
审稿时长
6 months
期刊介绍: The Journal of Back and Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation is a journal whose main focus is to present relevant information about the interdisciplinary approach to musculoskeletal rehabilitation for clinicians who treat patients with back and musculoskeletal pain complaints. It will provide readers with both 1) a general fund of knowledge on the assessment and management of specific problems and 2) new information considered to be state-of-the-art in the field. The intended audience is multidisciplinary as well as multi-specialty. In each issue clinicians can find information which they can use in their patient setting the very next day.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信