| Literature DB >> 22615787 |
Tae-Hun Kim1, Jung Won Kang, Kun Hyung Kim, Kyung-Won Kang, Mi-Suk Shin, So-Young Jung, Ae-Ran Kim, Hee-Jung Jung, Jin-Bong Choi, Kwon Eui Hong, Seung-Deok Lee, Sun-Mi Choi.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the effects of acupuncture compared to a control group using artificial tears. SETTING &Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2012 PMID: 22615787 PMCID: PMC3355143 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0036638
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Study flow chart.
Baseline characteristics (intention-to-treat population).
| Acupuncture group | Artificial tears group | |
| Characteristics | (n = 75) | (n = 75) |
|
| 47.95 (11.11) | 46.05 (13.10) |
|
| 22/53 | 19/56 |
|
| 26 | 25 |
|
| 6.00 (5.69) | 5.91 (4.97) |
|
| 16.87 (15.53) | 18.61 (16.80) |
|
| 7 | 6 |
|
| 7 | 7 |
|
| 36/4 | 27/3 |
|
| 65 | 67 |
|
| ||
|
| 33 | 44 |
|
| 5 | 3 |
|
| 37 | 28 |
|
| ||
|
| 0 | 0 |
|
| 7 | 10 |
|
| 2 | 3 |
|
| 2 | 1 |
|
| 1 | 6 |
|
| 2 | 3 |
Figure 2Ocular surface disease index (OSDI).
Primary and secondary outcomes at each visit.
| Acupuncture group (n = 75) | Artificial tears group (n = 75) | Adjusted difference | ||||||||||||
| Mean (SD) | Mean (SD) | (95% CI) | ||||||||||||
| Baseline | During treatment | Follow up | Baseline | During treatment | Follow up | During treatment | Follow up | |||||||
| 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | 12 weeks | 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | 12 weeks | 2 weeks | 4 weeks | 8 weeks | 12 weeks | |||
|
| 50.05 (21.63) | 33.67 (17.35) | 33.94 (20.16) | 34.70 (20.57) | 33.90 (21.42) | 52.75 (18.79) | 39.65 (17.94) | 37.38 (17.61) | 38.37 (19.51) | 41.99 (21.54) | −3.28(−7.06, 0.50) | −0.75(−4.22, 2.72) | −0.98(−4.08, 2.14) | −5.39*(−8.62, −2.16) |
|
| 66.67 (19.18) | 48.77 (21.44) | 42.83 (23.74) | 47.29 (22.90) | 42.79 (26.88) | 67.52 (17.31) | 46.23 (17.92) | 45.32 (20.24) | 51.07 (23.07) | 52.81 (24.12) | 3.40(−0.52, 7.32) | −1.64(−5.17, 1.89) | −2.92(−7.99, 2.15) | −9.17*(−13.70, −4.65) |
|
| 4.04 (1.20) | 3.01 (1.34) | 2.72 (1.22) | 2.96 (1.31) | 2.95 (1.47) | 4.08 (1.21) | 3.12 (1.11) | 2.88 (1.15) | 3.12 (1.30) | 3.32 (1.37) | −0.07(−0.31, 0.18) | −0.12(−0.40, 0.15) | −0.12(−0.37, 0.13) | −0.34(−0.58, −0.09) |
|
| 6.19 (2.18) | 6.80 (2.25) | 6.68 (2.85) | 6.01 (1.98) | 5.89 (2.02) | 5.89 (1.99) | 0.73*(0.32, 1.14) | 0.61(0.14, 1.07) | ||||||
|
| 4.49 (2.56) | 4.88 (3.70) | 5.95 (5.02) | 4.16 (2.66) | 4.95 (4.34) | 5.28 (4.07) | −0.40(−0.75, −0.05) | 0.33(0.02, 0.64) | ||||||
ANCOVA was used for the statistical analysis of changes from baseline in each outcome between two groups. *P<0.05.
All the outcomes were adjusted for baseline values and clinical research centres. Negative values of adjusted difference in OSDI, VAS and QOL (positive difference in BUT and Schirmer) are in favour of acupuncture group.
Figure 3Visual analogue scale (VAS) for self-assessment of ocular discomfort.
Figure 4Tear film break-up time (TFBUT).
Figure 5Schirmer Ι test.
General improvements of dry eye-related symptoms.
| Assessed by participants (n = 137)* | Assessed by physicians (n = 136)† | |||||||||
| Grade | E | G | F | P | A | E | G | F | P | A |
| Acupuncture | 2(2.99%) | 27(40.30%) | 28(41.79%) | 10(14.93%) | 0(0%) | 4(5.97%) | 28(41.79%) | 25(37.31%) | 10(14.93%) | 0(0%) |
| Artificial tears | 2(2.86%) | 17(24.29%) | 26(37.14%) | 24(34.29%) | 1(1.43%) | 0(0%) | 17(24.64%) | 22(31.88%) | 27(39.13%) | 3(4.35%) |
Tested by Chi-squared test; *P = 0.060, †P = 0.001; E: excellent, G: good, F: fair, P: poor, A: aggravation.