Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture and conventional acupuncture for rheumatoid arthritis pain: A network meta-analysis with emphasis on placebo control validity.

IF 4 2区 医学 Q1 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Shan Wang, Ye-Hua Xue, Li-Bing Liang, Kun-Peng Li, Cai-Qin Wu
{"title":"Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture and conventional acupuncture for rheumatoid arthritis pain: A network meta-analysis with emphasis on placebo control validity.","authors":"Shan Wang, Ye-Hua Xue, Li-Bing Liang, Kun-Peng Li, Cai-Qin Wu","doi":"10.1016/j.joim.2025.09.005","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Acupuncture is recognized as an alternative therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pain, but its efficacy evaluations are often confounded by variability in sham acupuncture techniques. The accurate selection of sham acupuncture controls, which are administered at either therapeutic acupuncture points or non-acupuncture points, is crucial for the validity of assessment outcomes.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To assess the efficacy of acupuncture in treating RA pain and identify the most effective acupuncture methods.</p><p><strong>Search strategy: </strong>Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wanfang Database were searched from inception to October 11, 2024. Keywords included \"rheumatoid arthritis,\" \"acupuncture,\" \"electroacupuncture,\" and \"pain.\"</p><p><strong>Inclusion criteria: </strong>Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with RA that assessed pain using a visual analog scale and joint swelling by swollen joint count. Eligible trials compared electroacupuncture, conventional acupuncture, or sham acupuncture, against standard pain medication.</p><p><strong>Data extraction and analysis: </strong>Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and evidence certainty was assessed via the confidence in network meta-analysis framework. A frequentist network meta-analysis with random-effect models was conducted, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Ten RCTs involving 704 participants were analyzed. Electroacupuncture (SMD: -1.42; 95% CI: [-1.87, -0.98]) and conventional acupuncture (SMD: -1.11; 95% CI: [-1.49, -0.73]) outperformed conventional therapy and non-acupoint sham needling. Surface under cumulative ranking curve showed that electroacupuncture was most effective for pain reduction (97.7%), followed by conventional acupuncture (75.1%), non-acupoint sham (29.1%), same-acupoint sham (28.6%), and conventional therapy (19.5%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Electroacupuncture demonstrated the highest efficacy for RA pain relief. Same-acupoint sham acupuncture may underestimate acupuncture's true effect and is not recommended as a placebo control. Non-acupoint sham acupuncture is a more valid control for future trials. Please cite this article as: Wang S, Xue YH, Liang LB, Li KP, Wu CQ. Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture and conventional acupuncture for rheumatoid arthritis pain: A network meta-analysis with emphasis on placebo control validity. J Integr Med. 2025; Epub ahead of print.</p>","PeriodicalId":48599,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Integrative Medicine-Jim","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Integrative Medicine-Jim","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joim.2025.09.005","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Acupuncture is recognized as an alternative therapy for rheumatoid arthritis (RA) pain, but its efficacy evaluations are often confounded by variability in sham acupuncture techniques. The accurate selection of sham acupuncture controls, which are administered at either therapeutic acupuncture points or non-acupuncture points, is crucial for the validity of assessment outcomes.

Objective: To assess the efficacy of acupuncture in treating RA pain and identify the most effective acupuncture methods.

Search strategy: Databases including MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed, Cochrane Library, Scopus, Web of Science, China National Knowledge Infrastructure Database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database, and Wanfang Database were searched from inception to October 11, 2024. Keywords included "rheumatoid arthritis," "acupuncture," "electroacupuncture," and "pain."

Inclusion criteria: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in adults with RA that assessed pain using a visual analog scale and joint swelling by swollen joint count. Eligible trials compared electroacupuncture, conventional acupuncture, or sham acupuncture, against standard pain medication.

Data extraction and analysis: Two reviewers independently extracted data on study design, participant characteristics, interventions and outcomes. Risk of bias was evaluated using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool, and evidence certainty was assessed via the confidence in network meta-analysis framework. A frequentist network meta-analysis with random-effect models was conducted, and standardized mean difference (SMD) and 95% confidence interval (CI) were reported.

Results: Ten RCTs involving 704 participants were analyzed. Electroacupuncture (SMD: -1.42; 95% CI: [-1.87, -0.98]) and conventional acupuncture (SMD: -1.11; 95% CI: [-1.49, -0.73]) outperformed conventional therapy and non-acupoint sham needling. Surface under cumulative ranking curve showed that electroacupuncture was most effective for pain reduction (97.7%), followed by conventional acupuncture (75.1%), non-acupoint sham (29.1%), same-acupoint sham (28.6%), and conventional therapy (19.5%).

Conclusion: Electroacupuncture demonstrated the highest efficacy for RA pain relief. Same-acupoint sham acupuncture may underestimate acupuncture's true effect and is not recommended as a placebo control. Non-acupoint sham acupuncture is a more valid control for future trials. Please cite this article as: Wang S, Xue YH, Liang LB, Li KP, Wu CQ. Comparative effectiveness of electroacupuncture and conventional acupuncture for rheumatoid arthritis pain: A network meta-analysis with emphasis on placebo control validity. J Integr Med. 2025; Epub ahead of print.

电针与传统针刺治疗类风湿关节炎疼痛的比较疗效:一项强调安慰剂对照效度的网络meta分析。
背景:针灸被认为是治疗类风湿关节炎(RA)疼痛的一种替代疗法,但其疗效评估常常因假针灸技术的可变性而混淆。在治疗性穴位或非针灸穴位进行假针灸对照的准确选择对于评估结果的有效性至关重要。目的:评价针刺治疗类风湿性关节炎疼痛的疗效,确定最有效的针刺方法。检索策略:从项目成立至2024年10月11日检索MEDLINE、Embase、PubMed、Cochrane Library、Scopus、Web of Science、中国国家知识基础数据库、中国科技期刊库、万方数据库等数据库。关键词包括“类风湿关节炎”、“针灸”、“电针”和“疼痛”。纳入标准:随机对照试验(rct)在成人RA患者中使用视觉模拟量表评估疼痛,通过肿胀关节计数评估关节肿胀。符合条件的试验比较了电针、传统针灸或假针灸与标准止痛药的疗效。数据提取和分析:两位评论者独立提取研究设计、参与者特征、干预措施和结果的数据。使用Cochrane Risk of bias 2工具评估偏倚风险,并通过网络元分析框架的置信度评估证据确定性。采用随机效应模型进行频率网络元分析,并报告标准化平均差(SMD)和95%置信区间(CI)。结果:共分析10项随机对照试验,共704名受试者。电针(SMD: -1.42; 95% CI:[-1.87, -0.98])和常规针刺(SMD: -1.11; 95% CI:[-1.49, -0.73])优于常规疗法和非穴位假针刺。累积排序曲线表显示,电针镇痛效果最佳(97.7%),其次为常规针刺(75.1%)、非穴位假手术(29.1%)、同穴位假手术(28.6%)、常规治疗(19.5%)。结论:电针对RA疼痛的缓解效果最好。同一穴位的假针灸可能低估了针灸的真实效果,不推荐作为安慰剂对照。在未来的试验中,非穴位假针灸是一种更有效的对照。本文署名:王思、薛玉华、梁宝玲、李kp、吴春青。电针与传统针刺治疗类风湿关节炎疼痛的比较疗效:一项强调安慰剂对照效度的网络meta分析。集成医学[J];打印前Epub。
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
Journal of Integrative Medicine-Jim
Journal of Integrative Medicine-Jim Medicine-Complementary and Alternative Medicine
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
4.20%
发文量
3319
期刊介绍: The predecessor of JIM is the Journal of Chinese Integrative Medicine (Zhong Xi Yi Jie He Xue Bao). With this new, English-language publication, we are committed to make JIM an international platform for publishing high-quality papers on complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and an open forum in which the different professions and international scholarly communities can exchange views, share research and their clinical experience, discuss CAM education, and confer about issues and problems in our various disciplines and in CAM as a whole in order to promote integrative medicine. JIM is indexed/abstracted in: MEDLINE/PubMed, ScienceDirect, Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI), Scopus, Embase, Chemical Abstracts (CA), CAB Abstracts, EBSCO, WPRIM, JST China, Chinese Science Citation Database (CSCD), and China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI). JIM Editorial Office uses ThomsonReuters ScholarOne Manuscripts as submitting and review system (submission link: http://mc03.manuscriptcentral.com/jcim-en). JIM is published bimonthly. Manuscripts submitted to JIM should be written in English. Article types include but are not limited to randomized controlled and pragmatic trials, translational and patient-centered effectiveness outcome studies, case series and reports, clinical trial protocols, preclinical and basic science studies, systematic reviews and meta-analyses, papers on methodology and CAM history or education, conference proceedings, editorials, commentaries, short communications, book reviews, and letters to the editor. Our purpose is to publish a prestigious international journal for studies in integrative medicine. To achieve this aim, we seek to publish high-quality papers on any aspects of integrative medicine, such as acupuncture and traditional Chinese medicine, Ayurveda medicine, herbal medicine, homeopathy, nutrition, chiropractic, mind-body medicine, taichi, qigong, meditation, and any other modalities of CAM; our commitment to international scope ensures that research and progress from all regions of the world are widely covered. These ensure that articles published in JIM have the maximum exposure to the international scholarly community. JIM can help its authors let their papers reach the widest possible range of readers, and let all those who share an interest in their research field be concerned with their study.
×
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