蜂毒针灸治疗肌肉骨骼疼痛:一项最新的系统综述和荟萃分析。

IF 3.3 2区 医学 Q1 INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE
Soo-Hyun Sung, Soobin Jang, Gihyun Lee, Jang-Kyung Park, Sungjoo Lee, Byung-Cheul Shin
{"title":"蜂毒针灸治疗肌肉骨骼疼痛:一项最新的系统综述和荟萃分析。","authors":"Soo-Hyun Sung, Soobin Jang, Gihyun Lee, Jang-Kyung Park, Sungjoo Lee, Byung-Cheul Shin","doi":"10.1186/s12906-025-04891-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>An updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the clinical evidence for the use of BVA for musculoskeletal pain. We searched 13 electronic databases up to December 2024 with no language restrictions. Since 2008, nine RCTs have been additionally identified, so a total of 20 trials were included in our updated review. In a meta-analysis of 2 RCTs, pain was significantly reduced with BVA compared to sham injection of normal saline (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]; mean difference [MD]: -16.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -26.35 to -7.51, P = 0.0004, n = 85; heterogeneity: I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). The meta-analysis of 5 RCTs comparing BVA plus acupuncture to saline injection plus acupuncture showed significant improvements in the 10-cm VAS (MD: -1.24; 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.85, P < 0.00001, n = 152; heterogeneity: I<sup>2</sup> = 16%). No severe side effects such as anaphylaxis were observed in any of the eight trials. BVA appeared to improve musculoskeletal pain conditions compared to sham injections. However, the meta-analysis included only a limited number of RCTs with small sample sizes, and there was considerable clinical heterogeneity in terms of pain types, dosage, and concentration of BVA, which restricts the ability to draw definitive conclusions.</p>","PeriodicalId":9128,"journal":{"name":"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies","volume":"25 1","pages":"161"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12039175/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Bee venom acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain conditions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.\",\"authors\":\"Soo-Hyun Sung, Soobin Jang, Gihyun Lee, Jang-Kyung Park, Sungjoo Lee, Byung-Cheul Shin\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s12906-025-04891-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>An updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the clinical evidence for the use of BVA for musculoskeletal pain. We searched 13 electronic databases up to December 2024 with no language restrictions. Since 2008, nine RCTs have been additionally identified, so a total of 20 trials were included in our updated review. In a meta-analysis of 2 RCTs, pain was significantly reduced with BVA compared to sham injection of normal saline (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]; mean difference [MD]: -16.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -26.35 to -7.51, P = 0.0004, n = 85; heterogeneity: I<sup>2</sup> = 0%). The meta-analysis of 5 RCTs comparing BVA plus acupuncture to saline injection plus acupuncture showed significant improvements in the 10-cm VAS (MD: -1.24; 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.85, P < 0.00001, n = 152; heterogeneity: I<sup>2</sup> = 16%). No severe side effects such as anaphylaxis were observed in any of the eight trials. BVA appeared to improve musculoskeletal pain conditions compared to sham injections. However, the meta-analysis included only a limited number of RCTs with small sample sizes, and there was considerable clinical heterogeneity in terms of pain types, dosage, and concentration of BVA, which restricts the ability to draw definitive conclusions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":9128,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies\",\"volume\":\"25 1\",\"pages\":\"161\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-28\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12039175/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-025-04891-1\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-025-04891-1","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

摘要

对随机对照试验(rct)进行了最新的系统评价,以评估BVA治疗肌肉骨骼疼痛的临床证据。我们检索了截至2024年12月的13个电子数据库,没有语言限制。自2008年以来,我们新增了9项随机对照试验,因此我们更新的综述共纳入了20项试验。在2项随机对照试验的荟萃分析中,与假注射生理盐水相比,BVA显著减轻了疼痛(10厘米视觉模拟量表[VAS];平均差[MD]: -16.93;95%置信区间[CI] = -26.35 ~ -7.51, P = 0.0004, n = 85;异质性:I2 = 0%)。5项比较BVA +针灸与生理盐水注射+针灸的随机对照试验的荟萃分析显示,10 cm VAS显著改善(MD: -1.24;95% CI = -1.63 ~ -0.85, P 2 = 16%)。8项试验均未观察到严重的副作用,如过敏反应。与假注射相比,BVA似乎改善了肌肉骨骼疼痛状况。然而,荟萃分析只纳入了有限数量的小样本量的随机对照试验,并且在疼痛类型、BVA剂量和浓度方面存在相当大的临床异质性,这限制了得出明确结论的能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Bee venom acupuncture for musculoskeletal pain conditions: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.

An updated systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) was conducted to evaluate the clinical evidence for the use of BVA for musculoskeletal pain. We searched 13 electronic databases up to December 2024 with no language restrictions. Since 2008, nine RCTs have been additionally identified, so a total of 20 trials were included in our updated review. In a meta-analysis of 2 RCTs, pain was significantly reduced with BVA compared to sham injection of normal saline (10-cm visual analog scale [VAS]; mean difference [MD]: -16.93; 95% confidence interval [CI] = -26.35 to -7.51, P = 0.0004, n = 85; heterogeneity: I2 = 0%). The meta-analysis of 5 RCTs comparing BVA plus acupuncture to saline injection plus acupuncture showed significant improvements in the 10-cm VAS (MD: -1.24; 95% CI = -1.63 to -0.85, P < 0.00001, n = 152; heterogeneity: I2 = 16%). No severe side effects such as anaphylaxis were observed in any of the eight trials. BVA appeared to improve musculoskeletal pain conditions compared to sham injections. However, the meta-analysis included only a limited number of RCTs with small sample sizes, and there was considerable clinical heterogeneity in terms of pain types, dosage, and concentration of BVA, which restricts the ability to draw definitive conclusions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies
BMC Complementary Medicine and Therapies INTEGRATIVE & COMPLEMENTARY MEDICINE-
CiteScore
6.10
自引率
2.60%
发文量
300
审稿时长
19 weeks
期刊介绍:
×
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