Yuan Ming Di1, Brian H May2, Anthony Lin Zhang3, Iris Wenyu Zhou4, Christopher Worsnop5, Charlie C L Xue6. 1. School of Health Sciences, Traditional & Complementary Medicine Research Program, Health Innovations Research Institute, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. Electronic address: yuan.di@rmit.edu.au. 2. School of Health Sciences, Traditional & Complementary Medicine Research Program, Health Innovations Research Institute, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. Electronic address: brian.may@rmit.edu.au. 3. School of Health Sciences, Traditional & Complementary Medicine Research Program, Health Innovations Research Institute, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. Electronic address: tony.zhang@rmit.edu.au. 4. School of Health Sciences, Traditional & Complementary Medicine Research Program, Health Innovations Research Institute, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia. Electronic address: iris.zhou@rmit.edu.au. 5. Department of Respiratory and Sleep Medicine, Austin Hospital, Heidelberg, VIC 3081, Australia. Electronic address: christopher.worsnop@austin.org.au. 6. School of Health Sciences, Traditional & Complementary Medicine Research Program, Health Innovations Research Institute, RMIT University, Bundoora, VIC 3083, Australia; Guangdong Provincial Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences, Guangzhou, China. Electronic address: charlie.xue@rmit.edu.au.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluated the effects of ear acupuncture, ear acupressure and auriculotherapy for cigarette smoking cessation (SC) at end-of-treatment (EoT), three, six and 12 months follow-up. METHODS: Searches of six English and Chinese databases located 25 randomized controlled trials (3735 participants). Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias. Meta-analyses were conducted in two pools: 1. SC-specific ear acupuncture/acupressure or auriculotherapy (EAP/R) vs. non-specific/inactive control; and 2. SC-specific EAP/R vs. other SC-specific treatment. Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on the validity of interventions as SC-specific treatments or non-specific/inactive interventions; and the use of biochemical SC confirmation. RESULTS: Pool 1: the 12 valid SC-specific EAP/R interventions were superior to inactive EAP/R controls at EoT (RR=1.77 [1.39, 2.25]), three months follow-up (RR=1.54 [1.14, 2.08]), and six months follow-up (RR=2.01, [1.23, 3.28]) but data were insufficient at 12 months. In Pool 2: there was no superiority or inferiority for EAP/R at EoT or at 3 and 6 month follow-ups compared to SC-specific behavioural therapy or SC-specific body acupuncture. CONCLUSIONS: Pool 1 data appeared most consistent for studies of ear acupressure (EAPR) vs. non-specific EAPR controls, with confirmed SC rates at 3 months post-treatment of 20.0% for test groups vs. 7.5% for controls. In Pool 2 the EAP/R interventions appeared neither inferior nor superior to the behavioural interventions at 3 and 6 month follow-ups. However, meta-analysis results derived from relatively small-sized trials with no biochemical validation of SC in Pool 2. Larger, well-controlled studies using biochemical confirmation of SC are needed.
BACKGROUND: This systematic review evaluated the effects of ear acupuncture, ear acupressure and auriculotherapy for cigarette smoking cessation (SC) at end-of-treatment (EoT), three, six and 12 months follow-up. METHODS: Searches of six English and Chinese databases located 25 randomized controlled trials (3735 participants). Methodological quality was assessed using Cochrane Risk of Bias. Meta-analyses were conducted in two pools: 1. SC-specific ear acupuncture/acupressure or auriculotherapy (EAP/R) vs. non-specific/inactive control; and 2. SC-specific EAP/R vs. other SC-specific treatment. Sensitivity analyses were conducted based on the validity of interventions as SC-specific treatments or non-specific/inactive interventions; and the use of biochemical SC confirmation. RESULTS: Pool 1: the 12 valid SC-specific EAP/R interventions were superior to inactive EAP/R controls at EoT (RR=1.77 [1.39, 2.25]), three months follow-up (RR=1.54 [1.14, 2.08]), and six months follow-up (RR=2.01, [1.23, 3.28]) but data were insufficient at 12 months. In Pool 2: there was no superiority or inferiority for EAP/R at EoT or at 3 and 6 month follow-ups compared to SC-specific behavioural therapy or SC-specific body acupuncture. CONCLUSIONS: Pool 1 data appeared most consistent for studies of ear acupressure (EAPR) vs. non-specific EAPR controls, with confirmed SC rates at 3 months post-treatment of 20.0% for test groups vs. 7.5% for controls. In Pool 2 the EAP/R interventions appeared neither inferior nor superior to the behavioural interventions at 3 and 6 month follow-ups. However, meta-analysis results derived from relatively small-sized trials with no biochemical validation of SC in Pool 2. Larger, well-controlled studies using biochemical confirmation of SC are needed.
Authors: Lai Fun Ho; Wai Kwan Ho; Ling Ling Wong; Sze Wan Chiu; Shuk Yu Tang; Chun Ming Wong; Kin San Chan; Chi Lan Lam; Min Chen; Kam Leung Chan; Guohua Lin; Bacon Fung-Leung Ng; Zhi Xiu Lin Journal: Chin Med Date: 2022-08-09 Impact factor: 4.546